REVELATION A Textual History of the King James Bible David Norton has recently re-edited the King James Bible for Cam- bridge, and this book arises from his intensive work on that project. Here he shows how the text of the most important Bible in the English language was made, and how, for better and for worse, it changed in the hands of printers and editors until, in 1769, it became the text we know today. Using evidence as diverse as the marginalia of the origi- nal translators in unique copies of early printings, and the results of extensive computer collation of electronically held texts, Norton has produced a scholarly edition of the King James Bible for the new cen- tury that will restore the authority of the 1611 translation. This book describes this fascinatingbackground, explains Norton’s editorial prin- ciples and provides substantial lists and tables of variant readings. It will be indispensable to scholars of the English Bible, literature and publishing history. david norton is Reader in English at Victoria University of Wellington. He is the author of A History of the Bible as Literature, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 1993; revised and condensed as A History of the English Bible as Literature, 2000). A Textual History of The King James Bible david norton cambridge university press Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid, Cape Town, Singapore, São Paulo Cambridge University Press The Edinburgh Building, Cambridge cb2 2ru, UK First published in print format isbn-13 978-0-521-77100-9 isbn-13 978-0-521-77828-2 isbn-13 978-0-511-48811-5 © David Norton 2004 2005 Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9780521771009 This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception and to the provision of relevant collective licensing agreements, no reproduction of any part may take place without the written permission of Cambridge University Press. isbn-10 0-521-77100-5 isbn-10 0-521-77828-x Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of urls for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication, and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain, accurate or appropriate. Published in the United States of America by Cambridge University Press, New York www.cambridge.org hardback OCeISBN hardback For Ward Allen Friend, inspiration and wonderful correspondent And thy word was a perfect worke (2Esdras 6:38) Contents List of illustrations [page x] Acknowledgements [xi] List of abbreviations [xii] part 1 the history 1 Making the text [3] Introduction [3] The beginnings of the King James Bible [4] Setting-up the work [6] Companies at work [11] MS 98 [15] Making the final version: John Bois’s notes [17] The annotated Bishops’ Bible [20] A contribution from the printer? [25] The final copy [26] Conclusion [27] 2 Pre-1611 evidence for the text [29] Introduction [29] MS 98 [30] Bois’s notes [34] The Bishops’ Bible of 1602 [35] Bod 1602 [37] 3 The first edition [46] A ‘Bible of the largest and greatest volume’ [46] A specimen page [47] Initials and space [51] Typographical errors [54] ‘Hidden’ errors [57] 4 The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 [62] Introduction [62] The second folio edition or ‘She’ Bible (H319) [65] The early quartos and octavos [73] The 1613 folio (H322) [76] The 1616 small folio, roman type (H349) [78] viii Contents The 1617 folio (H353) [79] Conclusion [81] 5 Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 [82] The first Cambridge edition, 1629 (H424) [82] The second Cambridge edition, 1638 (H520) [89] Spelling in the Cambridge editions [93] Commercial competition and corruptions [94] A standard – or a new revision? [96] A hundred years of solicitude [99] 6 Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 [103] Three Bibles [103] What Parris and Blayney did to the text [106] Why did Blayney’s become the standard text? [113] 7 The current text [115] Introduction [115] Should the text have been changed? Thomas Curtis and the Universities [116] The American Text [119] F. H. A. Scrivener and the Cambridge Paragraph Bible [122] Conclusion: a fossilised concord [125] part 2 the new cambridge paragraph bible 8 Variants and orthography [131] Two principles [131] The beginning of The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible [131] The variant readings [133] ‘Mere orthography’ [133] Names [146] Conclusion [148] 9 Punctuation and other matters [149] The original punctuation [149] The received punctuation [153] Punctuation in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible [155] The italics [162] The margin, headers and chapter summaries [163] part 3 Appendices 1 Printer’s errors in the first edition [167] 2 First and second edition variations [173] 3 The King’s Printer’s list? [180] Contents ix 4 Selective collation of the 1613 folio (H322) with the first and second editions [184] 5 Selective collation of the 1617 folio (H353) with the first and second editions [188] 6 Kilburne’s list of errors [192] 7 Blayney’s ‘Account of the collation and revision of the Bible’ [195] 8 Variant readings in the KJB text [198] 9 Spelling changes to the current text [356] Bibliography [362] General index [368] Word index [372] Index of biblical references [376] Illustrations 1 Genesis 15–16, fol. A5 v . from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible (Bib. Eng. 1602 b. 1), with annotations by the KJB translators, courtesy of the Bodleian Library, University of Oxford page 39 2 First edition KJB, Genesis 16–17, by permission of the Bible Society and of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library 48 3 Five unusual initials from the first edition of the King James Bible, by permission of the Bible Society and of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library 52 4 Second edition KJB, Genesis 16–17, by permission of the Bible Society and of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library 68 5 Ezekiel 40:42 from the first edition KJB, by permission of the Bible Society and of the Syndics of Cambridge University Library 134 Acknowledgements Paul Morris, for his insistence before this work was thought of that I should learn some Hebrew, his patience with my slow learning, and his help with understanding problems in the text; Graham Davies and Arthur Pomeroy for their help with the original languages. Any errors are in spite of their efforts. Alan Jesson and the staff of the Bible Society Library: models of congenial helpfulness. F. H. A. Scrivener, colleague fromthe nineteenthcentury, onwhose shoul- ders I have stood. Victoria University of Wellington, for sabbatical leave, and Clare Hall, Cambridge, for a visiting scholarship, both in 1998. Abbreviations ABS American Bible Society Apoc. Apocrypha Bod 1602 1602 Bishops’ Bible with KJB translators’ annotations BS Bible Society Library (Cambridge) CUL Cambridge University Library H A. S. Herbert, Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961. KJB King James Bible MS 98 Lambeth Palace Library MS 98 NT New Testament OED Oxford English Dictionary OT Old Testament part 1 The history 1 Making the text Introduction The text of the KJB is commonly thought to be the fixed and stable work of one collection of translators. This is not the case. First, as the translators recognised, it is a revision of earlier work. In the Preface, they declare: Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one . . . but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one, not iustly to be excepted against; that hath bene our indeauour, that our marke. 1 The KJB, first printed in 1611 by the King’s Printer Robert Barker, is the culmination of a sequence of work begun by William Tyndale and con- tinued by Miles Coverdale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishops’ Bible and the Rheims NewTestament (to name only the chief predecessors). Second, the development of the text did not stop with the publication of the translators’ work in 1611. Changes – sometimes deliberate, sometimes accidental, some for the better, some not – were made in subsequent print- ings by the King’s Printer. From 1629 on, editorial work on the text began to be a major factor in creating the texts that we have today: the spelling was modernised, changes were made in the translation, and the punctua- tion was revised. Most of the changes were made by 1769, but work of this sort has never quite ceased. As a result, modern versions differ constantly from the 1611 text, though most of these differences are minor matters of spelling. Moreover, there are variations betweencurrently available editions, especially between English and American editions. As well as thinking of the KJB as the culmination of nearly a century of translation work, therefore, we should think of the text itself as continuing to develop, and as never quite settling either into one stable form or into the best form it might take. There are two stories here. The first, the story of the development of English translations through to the KJB, has been frequently told, and there are good studies of the indebtedness of the KJB to its predecessors, and of its particular characteristics as a translation. The 1 ‘The translators to the reader’, fol. B1 v . 4 A Textual History of the King James Bible second, the story of the history of the KJB text itself from 1611 on, has, until now, only once been studied and told, in F. H. A. Scrivener’s The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1884; originally the introduction to The Cambridge Paragraph Bible). When the present edition of the KJB was first considered by Cambridge University Press, it seemed a good idea to reissue Scrivener’s book with an additional chapter dealing with the new work. But, as work went on, it became clear that a new book was needed even though Scrivener’s work still contained a great deal of real value. As a history of the text it has some significant errors, and some sections that can be usefully developed. Moreover, a good deal of it is directed towards The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, the text of which has had little influence on the text as it is generally available. Hence the present book. ThoughI aminplaces critical of Scrivener, I also draw freely on his material and frequently agree with his judgements on particular readings. The beginnings of the King James Bible Thesurvivingevidenceabout themakingof theKJBis patchyandtantalising. Since some of it is also evidence for the text of the KJB, it is doubly important to weigh it up thoroughly: we need to know as much as possible of how the text was made in order to make the best possible judgements on editorial difficulties that it presents, and we need to have a clear sense of the status of the individual pieces of evidence as witnesses to the text. The evidence may not support the orderly and meticulous image we have of the work as much as has been generally thought; at the same time, some of it gives more insight into what the wording of the KJB was meant to be than has been recognised by previous editors. Forty copies of the Bishops’ Bible were prepared for the translators and only one – quite possibly a composite copy made up from several of the forty – is known to have survived. Individual companies of translators were supposed to send copies of their work as they finished it to the other compa- nies, and again only one is known to have survived. Indeed, if they followed their rules exactly, there would have been hundreds of such copies, together with a significant number of letters about places of especial obscurity. Pre- vious historians of the KJB have wondered about the survival of such things as John Bois’s notes about the work, and now two copies have been found. There is, in short, more evidence than there used to be, and a reasonable chance that more is still to be found. The evidence we do have tells a lot about the work but not enough to clear up all mysteries about how the work was done: speculation and guesswork will be unavoidable as we try to establish just how the text was created. Making the text 5 Though there had been earlier attempts to initiate a newtranslation, 2 the idea of making the KJB came from a conference held at Hampton Court in January 1604. James I, who had been on the throne for less than a year, had called the conference to try to establish a degree of religious uniformity in his kingdoms. Inthe midst of it, seemingly out of the blue, the Puritanleader John Reynolds suggested a new translation. At this time, though the older versions had not disappeared from circulation, there were two principal English versions of the Bible. The Bishops’ Bible of 1568 was the official Bible of the Church, but had no great reputation for scholarship. It had last been printed in folio in 1602, and this was to be its final complete printing. Vastly more popular, and favoured by the Puritans, was the Geneva Bible of 1560. The work of protestant exiles at Geneva during the reign of Mary, it was of considerable scholarly merit and was chiefly characterised by its extensive annotations. Bothwere revisions of the pioneeringworkof Tyndale (NT 1526, revised NT 1534, Pentateuch 1530, Genesis to 2 Chronicles in the MatthewBible, 1537), Coverdale (1535) and the first official Bible of the Church of England, the Great Bible (1539–40). Ontheseconddayof theconference, Monday16January, Reynolds moved ‘his Maiestie, that there might bee a newe translation of the Bible, because, those which were allowed in the raigns of Henrie the eight, and Edward the sixt, were corrupt and not aunswerable to the truth of the Originall’. 3 He gave three examples. In Gal. 4:25, ouo:ciytï ‘is not well translated, as now it is, Bordreth, neither expressing the force of the worde, nor the Apostles sense, nor the situation of the place’. Psalm 105:28 should read ‘they were not disobedient’, rather than ‘they were not obedient’, and Ps. 106:30 is wrong to read ‘then stood up Phinees and prayed’ because the Hebrew is ‘executed iudgement’ (Barlow, p. 45). These are precisely the kind of things translators andeditors of translations deal with. Yet the petitionis odd. This was not one of the topics that Reynolds had said he would raise, and so appears almost as a casual interjection. The argument appears brief and weak: Reynolds has given three Great Bible readings, apparently ignoring the existence of the Bishops’ Bible, which had corrected the sense in two of the readings. 2 Pollard (pp. 138–9) gives an Elizabethan draft for an Act of Parliament for a new version that dates from the primacy of Whitgift (1583–1604). The Hebraist Hugh Broughton long agitated for a new translation. In a letter of 21 June 1593 he proposed making a revision with five other scholars; he claimed considerable support and later blamed Whitgift for the failure of his proposal (Dictionary of National Biography). He wrote in detail about the need for revision and the principles on which it should be undertaken in An Epistle to the LearnedNobility of EnglandTouching Translating the Bible (Middleburgh, 1597). Notoriously intransigent, he was not asked to work on the KJB. 3 Barlow, p. 45. The accuracy of Barlow’s report is questionable. It was written at Bishop Bancroft’s request, read by the King before publication and scorned by those who were not of the Church party (Babbage, p. 70). 6 A Textual History of the King James Bible Moreover, if the problem was simply a matter of a few such readings, they might easily have been dealt with in the next printing of the Bishops’ Bible. Many such matters had already been dealt with, so many that the successive editions differ markedly from the 1568 original. It may be that Reynolds’ intention was to push the conference into accepting the Geneva Bible as the official Bible of the Church, for it corrects where he demands correction, and the two revisions he suggests are exactly those of the Geneva Bible. If this was the intention, it failed instantly: James thought Geneva the worst of the translations because of the anti-monarchist tendencies of a few of the notes. Yet he took up the idea, hoping for a uniform translation, by which he meant one the whole Church would be bound to. His other particular interest, following his dislike of Geneva, was ‘that no marginall notes should be added’ (Barlow, pp. 46–7). Setting-up the work Rather thanquiet correctioninthe printing house, the workbecame revision on the grandest scale, as befitted the ambitions of a newly crowned scholar- king. Six companies of translators were created, two each at Westminster, Cambridge and Oxford, and forty-seven men named to these companies. The first Cambridge company worked from Chronicles to Ecclesiastes, the first Oxford company took the Prophets, and the second Oxford company the Gospels, Acts and Revelation. Whenwecometotheother threecompanies thefirst of themanymysteries about the making of the KJB arises, one that at first sight seems minor, but may prove to be important. The ten men of the first Westminster company dealt with Genesis to 2 Kings, but there are significant variations between the four lists of translators preserved in the British Library. 4 MS Harley 750, possibly the latest of these lists, divides the company in two, five men for the Pentateuch and five for ‘the story from Joshua to the first book of the Chronicles excluded’. Giving further support to the possibility of subdivision of some of the committees is the fact that no copy of the list specifies simply Genesis to 2 Kings. One, MS Add. 28721, leaves out all mention of the Pentateuch, making it appear that the company started work from Joshua. The two other lists name the Pentateuch separately from the later books, implying that work on it may have been thought of as separate from work on the historical books. MS Harley 750 also suggests that the second Westminster company may have divided four and three, dealing with the Pauline epistles and the canonical epistles, and that the second 4 MS Add. 28721, fol. 23 r-v , MS Egerton 2884, fol. 5 r-v , MS Add. 4254, fol. 105 r and MS Harley 750, fol. 1 r-v . Making the text 7 Cambridge company may have divided the work on the Apocrypha at the end of Bel and the Dragon, for all the lists describe its work not as the Apocrypha but as ‘the Prayer of Manasses and the rest of the Apocrypha’. One other piece of evidence suggests that at least one company, the Cambridge Apocrypha company, subdivided things further and made indi- viduals responsible for individual parts as had happened with the Bishops’ Bible. 5 John Bois was a member of this company; his biographer, Andrew Walker, states: Sure I am, that part of the Apocrypha was allotted to him (for he hath shewed me the very copy he translated by) but, to my grief, I know not which part . . . When he had finished his own part, at the earnest request of him to whom it was assigned, he undertook a second. 6 Walker’s account is not necessarily reliable (see below, p. 17), but, at face value, this shows that individual translators worked on individual parts of the Apocrypha, and that Bois, having finished a section of the Apocrypha, undertook another section. 7 If Walker indeed is misremembering what Bois told him, it still seems likely that some form of subdivision of the work is referredto. ‘The Prayer of Manasses andthe rest of the Apocrypha’ maymean Manasses and bothbooks of Maccabees, whichis approximately one quarter of the Apocrypha. Seven men are named as making up this Cambridge company, so it is possible that they divided the work in quarters, and that they worked individually or in pairs. Rules for the work were drawn up, specifying some principles of trans- lation and how the work should proceed. Both aspects are of considerable importance: the principles of translation remain an important guide for editors of the text, and the procedural rules are crucial for understanding how the text was created. 1. The ordinary Bible read in the Church, commonly called the Bishops’ Bible, to be followed, and as little altered as the truth of the original will permit. 2. The names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used. 3. The old ecclesiastical words to be kept, viz.: as the word ‘Church’ not to be translated ‘Congregation’ etc. 5 Scrivener recognised the possibility that some of the evidence that follows ‘might lead to the supposition that the different Translators took to themselves separate books . . . as was really the case with the Bishops’ Bible’ (p. 12n). 6 Walker’s ‘The Life of that famous Grecian Mr John Bois’ (date of composition unknown) is reprinted in Allen, Translating, pp. 127–52; p. 139. 7 Allen probably stretches Walker too far in inferring that Bois ‘worked unofficially with another company’ (Translating, p. 5). 8 A Textual History of the King James Bible 4. When a word hath diverse significations, that to be kept which hath been most commonly used by the most of the Ancient Fathers, being agreeable to the propriety of the place, and the Analogy of Faith. 5. The division of the chapters to be altered either not at all, or as little as may be, if necessity so require. 6. No marginal notes at all to be affixed, but only for the explanation of the Hebrew or Greek words, which cannot without some circumlocution so briefly and fitly be expressed in the text. 7. Such quotations of places to be marginally set down as shall serve for fit reference of one Scripture to another. 8. Every particular man of each company to take the same chapter or chapters, and having translated or amended them severally by himself where he think good, all to meet together, confer what they have done, and agree for their part what shall stand. 9. As one company hath dispatched any one book in this manner, they shall send it to the rest to be considered of seriously and judiciously, for His Majesty is very careful for this point. 10. If any company, upon the review of the book so sent, shall doubt or differ upon any place, to send themword thereof, note the place and withal send their reasons, to which if they consent not, the difference to be compounded at the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work. 11. When any place of especial obscurity is doubted of, letters to be directed by authority to send to any learned man in the land for his judgement of such a place. 12. Letters to be sent from every Bishop to the rest of his clergy, admonishing them of this translation in hand, and to move and charge as many as being skilful in the tongues have taken pains in that kind, to send his particular observations to the company, either at Westminster, Cambridge or Oxford. 13. The directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place, and the King’s Professors in the Hebrew and Greek in each University. Tyndale’s. 14. These translations to be Matthew’s. used where they agree better with Coverdale’s. the text than the Bishops’ Bible, viz.: Whitchurch’s. Geneva. ⎧ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎨ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎪ ⎩ 15. Besides the said directors before mentioned, three or four of the most ancient and grave divines, in either of the universities not employed in the translating, to be assigned by the Vice-Chancellors, upon conference with the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translations as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the fourth rule above specified. 8 8 Three manuscripts in the British Library give the instructions (a manuscript from the Cambridge University Library Archives is reproduced as the endpaper for Nicolson’s Power and Glory). They vary in details of phrasing and spelling. I have modernised MS Add. 28721, fol. 24 r . This and MS Harley 750 omit rule 15 (this suggests they are the older manuscripts, for rule 15 was a late addition – see next note); for this rule I follow MS Egerton 2884, fol. 6 r . The version of the instructions given in Pollard is commonly followed, but does not correspond exactly with these manuscripts. Making the text 9 Most of these rules were followed, if not always to the letter. Rule 2, for instance, concerningnames, was onlypartiallyfollowed. Thoughsome of the names are conformed to vulgar usage, the translators paid more attention to the forms used in the originals and did not attempt to establish uniformity either of sound or spelling. So the major prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel also appear as Esai (2 Kgs 19:2), Esaias (NT), Esay (Apoc.), Ieremias (Apoc. and NT), Ieremie (Apoc. and NT), Ezechias (Apoc.) and Ezechiel (Apoc.). Some of this variety comes from differences between Hebrew and Greek spelling (differences of spelling in the same language are not usually registered), some from the period’s lack of standardised English spelling. ‘As near as may be’ is therefore the crucial phrase in this rule. Rules 9–12 were probably not followed very closely, as I will show. Rule 14 seems to be exclusive, tacitly forbidding use of the Roman Catholic Rheims NT, but the translators drew on this as they drew upon all the resources available to them; they did not pass over a good rendering simply because it did not come from the specified translations. The rules did not cover everything. Just as rule 15 was added later, 9 so various matters of practice were decided on while the work was in progress. Several English divines, including one of the translators, Samuel Ward, gave an account of the work to the Synod of Dort (20 November 1618). The account includes specimens of the rules, beginning with a paraphrase of rules 1, 2 and 6, and then, as if they were rules, moves on to the following matters of practice: 9 It was made following doubts about rules 3 and 4; these doubts were referred by the Vice- Chancellor of Cambridge to Bishop Bancroft, who replied: To be suer, if he had not signified unto them already, it was his majesty’s pleasure that, besides the learned persons imployed with them for the Hebrewe and Greeke, there should be three or fower of the most eminent and grave divines of their university, assigned by the vice-chancellour uppon conference with the rest of the heads, to be overseers of the translations, as well Hebrew as Greek, for the better observation of the rules appointed by his Highness, and especially concerning the third and fourth rule: and that when they had agreed uppon the persons for that purpose, he prayed them send him word thereof. (As given in Mombert, p. 348) There has been doubt as to whether this rule was followed, but we do know of one per- son who was appointed to this role: George Ryves, Warden of New College, Oxford, who was not one of the translators, is referred to as ‘one of the overseers of that part of the New Testament that is being translated out of Greek’ (Thomas Bilson to Thomas Lake, 19 April 1605; as given in Paine, p. 72). Anthony ` a Wood’s evidence about the overseers should probably be discounted. He implies that they were appointed later in the process (the ‘great work’ seems to refer to the work of the Oxford NT company): ‘which great work being finished, soon after, divers grave Divines in the University, not employed in translating, were assigned by the Vicechancellor (upon a conference had with the Heads of Houses) to be overseers of the Translations as well of Hebrew as of Greek’ (Wood, II; p. 283). The identity of phrasing with rule 15 makes it probable that Wood took the rule for the deed. 10 A Textual History of the King James Bible Thirdly, where a Hebrewor Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies. Fourthly, the more difficult Hebraisms and Graecisms were consigned to the margin. Fifthly, in the translation of Tobit and Judith, when any great discrepancy is found between the Greek text and the old vulgate Latin they followed the Greek text by preference. Sixthly, that words which it was anywhere necessary to insert into the text to complete the meaning were to be distinguished by another type, small roman. Seventhly, that newarguments shouldbe prefixedtoeverybook, andnewheadings to every chapter. Lastly, that a very perfect Genealogy and map of the Holy Land should be joined to the work. (Pollard, p. 142) This describes what was done most of the time, but the translators did not always work consistently. Not all variant readings or ambiguities are noted, and this sometimes leads to problems for later editors, particularly in cases where the translators give a reading that differs from the received understanding of the text. If, for instance, the alternative reading ‘and she went into the city’ had been noted at Ruth 3:15, it would have been absolutely certain that the translators had rejected this reading in order to follow the Hebrew literally, ‘and he went into the city’. The use of small roman type for added words, a practice inherited from the Geneva Bible, is very rough and ready, and has caused enormous difficulties for subsequent editors. There is one other important thing to be noted about this report. Just as it does not list all the rules, so it does not cover all questions of practice that the translators would have had to decide on. A full report would have saved much speculation. The idea of translations being done by large groups of scholars using a careful process of review is now quite familiar, and this makes it easy to forget just how innovative the scheme for the work was. Previous English versions had been the work of individuals or of small groups, sometimes with single members assigned to particular books, as with the Bishops’ Bible. There was only one well-known precedent for using so many scholars and for having a review process of sorts: the Septuagint. Even though the story of that translation is legendary, it may have provided a model. Seventy translators, representative of the best scholarship of the people, following the orders of a king, eachproducedtheir owntranslationandthencompared thempublicly; eachman’s versionwas verbally identical. 10 Similarly, the KJB rules, clearly drawn up with care and consultation, including consultation 10 For a discussion of the legend of the Septuagint, see my History, I, pp. 5–9. Making the text 11 with the King, envisage drawing on all the best scholars of the land. In addition to the men named to the companies, all the clergy are encouraged to contribute ‘particular observations’, experts on particular points are to be consulted, and, for the preservation of theological soundness, ‘ancient and grave divines’ of the universities are to be overseers. This is grandiose. As many as ten translators are individually to translate a single part, then to agree together on the translation. This work is then to be circulated among the other groups of translators, commentedonandfurther consideredby the original company. Thena general meetingis todeal withall remainingpoints of difference. In short every effort is made to include the whole country in the work and to ensure that every decision is made with the maximum of care and consensus. The KJB is to be a perfect work that will bring the whole kingdom together. Companies at work Within five months of the Hampton Court Conference translators had been selected, probably through a mixture of invitation and petition both by and on behalf of individuals. 11 Richard Bancroft, Bishop of London, wrote thus (presumably to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge) on 30 June: His Majesty being made acquainted with the choice of all them to be employed in the translating of the Bible, in such sort as Mr Lively can inform you, doth greatly approve of the said choice. And for as much as his Highness is very anxious that the same so religious a work should admit of no delay, he has commanded me to signify unto you in his name that his pleasure is, you should with all possible speed meet together in your University and begin the same. 12 11 Evidence for this comes from two sources. From Thomas Bodley’s letters to the keeper of his library, Thomas James, 26 and 31 October, and 7 November 1604 (Wheeler, ed., pp. 113–16), it appears that James was one of the men chosen, but Bodley, anxious not to lose his services, interfered. James expostulated with his domineering master, who, appearing ignorant of James’s wish to be part of the work, gave him an account of his actions: ‘I took my journey purposely to Oxon upon it, to talk with the parties by whom you were chosen, to dismiss you from it . . . and Dr Rainolds upon my speeches, thought it also reason not to press you any further. Moreover, I have signified since unto you that unless of yourself you were willing, no man would enforce you, offering, if need were, to talk with the B. of London [Bancroft] in that behalf’ (p. 115). Walker writes of jealousy over the selection of John Bois as a translator: ‘when it pleased God to move King James to that excellent work, the translation of the Bible; when the translators were to be chosen for Cambridge, he was sent for thither by those therein employed, and was chosen one; some university men thereat repining (it may be not more able, yet more ambitious to have born [a] share in that service) disdaining, that it should be thought, they needed any help from the country’ (as given in Allen, Translating for King James, p. 139). 12 Pollard, p. 27. 12 A Textual History of the King James Bible By August, Sir Thomas Bodley reported, the translators ‘are at it hard in Cambridge’, 13 so hard that ‘too earnest study and pains about the translation’ 14 were reckoned to have hastened the death in May 1605 of the man who led the work on the Hebrew, Edward Lively. Bodley’s letter perhaps implies that work at Oxford started a little more slowly, but it was evidently demanding enough by January 1605 for one of the translators, John Perin, to resign as Regius Professor of Greek. Work at Westminster also started early, though perhaps less diligently. In November 1604 Lancelot Andrewes, director of the OT company there, noted a particular afternoon as ‘our translation time’, but added that ‘most of our company are negli- gent’ (a statement that shows this company worked collectively rather than individually as the Apocrypha company seems to have done). 15 Alittle is knownabout howtheyworked. Robert Barker, the King’s Printer, supplied forty unbound copies of the 1602 Bishops’ Bible for the transla- tors. 16 John Selden says in his Table Talk that ‘that part of the Bible was given to him who was most excellent in such a tongue (as the Apocrypha to AndrewDownes), and then they met together; and one read the translation, the rest holding in their hands some Bible either of the learned tongues or French, Spanish, Italian, etc.; if they found any fault they spoke, if not he read on’ (p. 10). This does not square easily with each man making his own translation and comparing the results (rule 8), but it probably has a degree of truth. The translation referred to would be the Bishops’ Bible, and the practice of commenting on it as occasion arose seems sensible; presumably the comments were made in the light of each individual translator’s prepa- ration for the meeting and a particular version (or perhaps, versions) he had been designated to keep an eye on. Any changes to the Bishops’ Bible text would be noted on a master copy, the Bishops’ Bible itself. This stage of the work took three to four years. Wood’s account, if we can trust it, implies that the Oxford OT company’s work was finished by the time of the death of its head, Rainolds, on 21 May 1607: The said translators had recourse once a week to Dr Raynolds his lodgings in Corpus Christi College, and there as ’tis said perfected the work, notwithstanding the said Doctor, who had the chief hand in it, was all the while sorely afflicted with the gout. (Wood, II, p. 283) Aletter dated 5 December 1608 fromWilliamEyre to the future Archbishop of Armagh James Ussher confirms that arrangements were in hand for the 13 Thomas Bodley to Thomas James, 4 September 1604; Wheeler, ed., p. 108. 14 Paine, p. 74. 15 Lancelot Andrewes, Two Answers to Cardinal Perron, and Other Miscellaneous Works (Oxford, 1854), XI, p. xlii; as given in Allen, Epistles, p. xii. 16 Barker’s bill for (among other things) ‘40. large churchbibles for the translators’, dated 10 May 1605, is given in Morgan, ‘A King’s Printer at Work’, p. 370. Making the text 13 review of the whole work by the end of 1608, and implies that the work of the Cambridge OT company had been completed some time earlier: In my absence from Cambridge there was order taken from the King’s Majesty by the Archbishop of Canterbury that the translation of the Bible shall be finished and printed so soon as may be. Two of every company are chosen to revise and confer the whole at London. Hereupon I am earnestly requested to get again that copy of our part which I lent you for D. Daniel his use; for albeit there be two fair written copies out of it, yet there will be use of it because I noted in the margin by rashe tevoth (: s ) of the places which were doubted of. And this ;: ;¬s [i.e. it wants consideration] is not in the others. 17 A significant amount of time must have passed between the completion of this part of the work andthe writing of the letter, perhaps as muchas the year guessed at by Allen. 18 More importantly, the letter appears to confirm that ‘the general meeting, which is to be of the chief persons of each company, at the end of the work’ (rule 10) began its work in 1609, and was attended by a dozen of the translators. 19 The letter also raises questions. Allen, who argues keenly that all the procedural rules were followed, takes it as confirmation that rules 11 and 12 were followed, 20 but other inferences may be more probable. Rule 11 specifies that letters should be sent ‘when any place of special obscurity is doubted of ’; Eyre’s manuscript would only loosely fit this purpose, for it contains the whole work, and evidently the places so marked are to be the business of the general meeting. It would be stretching rule 12 to think that it envisaged learned men reviewing drafts of the work; the more obvious sense is that the rule is a mechanismfor obtaining comments onproblems in the originals or in the extant English translations. Eyre’s manuscript seems more appropriate to rule 9, that individual books should be sent to the other companies for their comment, but still it does not fit exactly, again because it contains the whole work. Now, the only known manuscript that appears to have been prepared for consultation, Lambeth Palace MS 98, contains not one book but most of the text of all of the Epistles, so the specification 17 Bodleian MS Rawlinson, C. 849, ff. 262 v –3 r , as given in Allen, Epistles, p. xvi, and Scrivener, p. 14n. ‘Rashe tevoth’ means heads of words or head marks (so Scrivener); presumably Eyre wrote the initial word or words of the doubtful places in the margin. 18 Allen (Epistles, p. xvii) takes ‘our part’ to refer to work done by the whole company, but the possibility that the companies subdivided their work makes this uncertain. Less certain still is that Eyre made his copy after the work was completed, and then studied and marked his copy. Eyre could have been working as a secretary, making a fair copy of the work as it proceeded and marking on it where the company was in doubt. 19 The report to the Synod of Dort confirms this: ‘after each section had finished its task, twelve delegates, chosen from them all, met together and reviewed and revised the whole work’ (Pollard, p. 142). 20 Allen, Epistles, p. xvii. 14 A Textual History of the King James Bible ‘any one book’ in rule 9 may have been treated loosely. 21 Perhaps, therefore, Eyre’s manuscript was prepared for the serious and judicial consideration of other companies, following the spirit but not the letter of rule 9. Presumably the ‘two fair written copies out of it’ were made for the same purpose, and it was expected that the copies would circulate in some way among the other five companies. There is more about the letter that is mysterious. Eyre, who was appropri- ately learned, is not otherwise known to have been one of the translators, yet he writes as one of a company (presumably the Cambridge OT company), and has clearly had a part in the work. Whether this was as a translator or as anoverseer or as a secretary is not clear. Ussher was not one of the translators, andappears to have actedas anintermediary, borrowing the manuscript ‘for D. Daniel his use’. Neither this nor the fact that Ussher himself was not con- sulted seems to fit with the idea of the translators sending out copies of their work ‘to seek the observations and judgements of learned men throughout the land’. 22 Another explanation is more likely. ‘D.’, which has been taken as an initial, is the standard abbreviation for doctor. Dr Daniel must be William Daniel D. D., translator of the New Testament and the Prayer Book into Irish. 23 He and Ussher had coincided at Trinity College, Dublin, and in 1608 both held positions at St Patrick’s Cathedral, Daniel as treasurer, Ussher as chancellor. Daniel had finished his NT and was working on his translation of the Prayer Book; he presumably wanted to see the translators’ work as an aid in this. 24 Eyre, then, seems to have lent his manuscript as a scholarly courtesy. If he remembered the business of consulting with the other companies when he did this, he must have considered the two fair copies sufficient for the purpose. It strains credibility to think that his manuscript was the company’s master copy; therefore the master copy did not have the doubtful places marked. Nevertheless, when the king hastened the work, Eyre or the Cambridge company as a whole realised that the only copy of their work with the doubtful places marked was in Ireland, and it was these queries 21 Allen observes that, ‘except for the second and third epistles of St John, the conclusion of each Epistle brings the final page of the manuscript copy of that Epistle to an end, so that each book forms a unit’, consequently ‘the manuscript is designed in such a way that it could have circulated book by book’ (pp. xxi, xxii). While this is true, the homogeneity of the manuscript shows that it was prepared at one time rather than in pieces as each Epistle was finished; that it remains complete shows that it was never divided up, and the excellent condition of the manuscript suggests that it was not subjected to the rigours of travel and that it was little worked on once it had been completed. 22 Allen thinks otherwise, Epistles, p. xvii. 23 Dictionary of National Biography. Scrivener makes the same identification (p. 14n.); like Allen, he takes the manuscript to have been used for consultation. 24 Another possibility is that he was thinking of or actually working on a translation of the OT into Irish; he was reputed to be a good Hebraist. Making the text 15 that the general meeting needed to deal with particularly. They needed this information in addition to the master copy. If there is not a degree of carelessness in this whole situation, it seems that the king’s order for the work to be ‘finished and printed as soon as may be’ caught the translators by surprise: they thought they had more time. Processes were cut short, and the envisaged consultations came to little. MS 98 One manuscript survives from this, the first stage of the work: Lambeth Palace MS 98. In conjunction with the evidence from John Bois’s notes on the work of the general meeting, it provides a great deal of insight into the nature and sequence of the translators’ revisions of the Epistles, as Allen’s masterful discussion shows. 25 But just howmuch should be inferred fromit as to the process of the work is questionable. The manuscript is headed ‘An English Translation of the Epistles . . .’, but this is in a different hand fromthe rest and suggests that whoever wrote it did not know that the manuscript represented the translators’ work in progress. The paper is of high quality, 32.5 by 20.3 cms, taller and slightly narrower than English A4. Each page is ruled in red like a two column Bible: a centre line divides the page, and there are lines for the margins and at top and bottom. Together with the use of a larger formal script for titles in the early part of the manuscript, all this gives an impression of care and formality. Only the left hand column and the left hand margin are used, recto and verso, so half the manuscript is blank: ample space is left for annotation and revision. Allen’s is the natural presumption, that this was a manuscript for circulation and comment, but there is another possibility: that it was intended as a master copy to be retained by the Westminster NT company, to be annotated as they received comments and suggestions. Either way, the intended annotation or revision in the right hand column did not happen. MS 98 appears to have been made for a purpose that was not fulfilled. As with Eyre’s letter, the implication is that a part of the translation process was left incomplete. The manuscript has some corrections but not enough to showwhether it passed out of the hands of the Westminster NTcompany. Allen details these, concluding that, ‘while such corrections prove that various eyes and hands scrutinized and corrected the text at various times, the corrections shed little light on the purposes of the manuscript’ (Epistles, p. lxix). They show attention to spelling and punctuation, and occasionally words and phrases are inserted, but it is not clear that they go beyond changes an individual 25 Allen, Epistles, introduction, especially pp. xlii ff. 16 A Textual History of the King James Bible might make while make reviewing his own work. One other characteristic of the manuscript is worth noting: ‘q’ for ‘quaerere’ (to question) appears thirty-five times. This seems to be the equivalent of Eyre’s ‘rashe tevoth’, a marking of doubtful places. The possibility that MS 98 was a master copy of this part of the work needs to be canvassed further, because the nature of the copy the printers worked fromis of real importance for the textual history. There are two possibilities: either the master copy was a complete manuscript or it was a copy of the Bishops’ Bible with the changes marked. The other chief characteristic of MS 98 besides the blank column is that it does not supply a translation of all the verses. On the first page, for instance, there is nothing written in for Rom. 1:2, 6, 8 and 9 except the verse number, but sufficient space is left for these verses tobe inscribedinthe left column. Consequently, there is enough space in the right column either for a complete manuscript version or for writing in changes subsequently agreed upon. As a master copy, with the missing verses added, MS 98 could have reached two possible final forms. In one form, the right hand column would give the complete final translation, and the printer would simply set the text from that column. In the other possible form, the right column would only have entries where the initial version in the left column had been changed, or where the left column was blank; the printer would then follow the right column but revert to the left column where that had no entry. Either form would represent a practical way of working; arguably the second would be more efficient, since it would keep the amount of transcribing to a minimum. However, such possibilities are far from proof that the translators created a master copy in one of these forms, or that the final copy was a complete manuscript. Allen notes that 1,769 verses are found in MS 98 and that 1,013 verses are left blank (Epistles, p. lxxi). Only 21 of the 1,769 verses do not contain some change to the Bishops’ Bible text. These verses are probably, as Allen suggests, the result of a lapse of attention and are most easily understood if the draft for MS 98 was an annotated Bishops’ Bible. This in turn suggests that the company initially recorded its work by way of noting changes on a copy of the Bishops’ Bible. If the revision process was cut short, then that annotated Bishops’ Bible might have remained the company’s master copy. Now, the 1,013 blank verses are presumably places where the Bishops’ Bible text was left unchanged, but perhaps the most important thing about them is that MS 98 could only have been used satisfactorily in relation to a Bishops’ Bible. It appears to be made froma Bishops’ Bible, and it presumes the continuing presence of that text. MS 98 is most illuminating as evidence of how much work was done in the first stage of revision and of how much remained to be done in later stages. Allen gives the following figures (p. xxi). In the 1,769 verses that MS 98 writes out there are 4,131 revisions of the Bishops’ Bible; 3,287 of these appear in the KJB (plus a further 1,765 revisions not marked in MS 98). Making the text 17 Counting in the 844 changes in MS 98 that do not appear in the KJB, the later stage of the work made 3,818 changes to the work done in the first stage. So the two stages each made a similar number of changes to their working text, 4,131 and 3,818. Of the 6,261 revisions that the KJB makes to the Bishops’ Bible text of the Epistles, just over half come fromMS 98, 3,287 as against 2,974. Making the final version: John Bois’s notes If the evidence of MS 98 holds good for the work done by all the companies, the translation was half finished when, around the end of 1608, the king hurried the translators to ‘the end of the work’, ‘the general meeting which is to be of the chief persons of each company’ (rule 11). Eyre’s letter implies that this meetingwas imminent. Therearesiximportant pieces of evidenceas to what happened in the next two to three years. Two of them are the most important evidence of all: the two 1611 printings of the KJB. Third, and next most important, is the 1602 Bishops’ Bible with annotations from the translators; though this involves some of the work done by the companies, it is also important as evidence about the final formof the translators’ work, and so is best left on one side for the moment. One point needs noting from it immediately, though, that it suggests that the finished work of the companies may have supplied up to five sixths of the changes eventually made by the translators – considerably more than the half suggested by MS 98. The remaining three pieces of evidence concern us at this point: they are the report noted above to the Synod of Dort, the brief life of John Bois by Walker, and Bois’s notes from the general meeting. Unfortunately, they are not entirely consistent with each other, and they do not provide answers to the two main problems: what was the nature of the final copy given to the printers, and, what influence did the printer have on the text? The report to the Synod of Dort states: After each section had finished its task twelve delegates, chosen from them all, met together and reviewed and revised the whole work. Lastly, the very Reverend the Bishop of Winchester, Bilson, together with Dr. Smith, now Bishop of Gloucester, a distinguished man, who had been deeply occu- pied in the whole work from the beginning, after all things had been maturely weighed and examined, put the finishing touches to this version. (Pollard, p. 142) The same report’s account of the translators’ rules (above, p. 9) had a first-hand quality to it in the way it revealed matters of practice not covered in the rules. The details here also appear first-hand. The silence on matters of consultationis inkeeping with the other suggestions that there was little if any consultation. Instead, there were two final stages, one involving a dozen men, one involving two. 18 A Textual History of the King James Bible Walker states that Bois spent four years in the first part of the work (Allen, Translating for King James, p. 139); this fits with the other evidence that the first stage was finished in 1608. He goes on: at the End whereof (The Whole Work being finished, and Three Copys of the whole Bible being sent to London, one from Cambridge, a Second from Oxford, and a Third from Westminster) A New Choyce was to be made of Six in all, Two out of Each Company to review the whole work, and extract one out of all Three, to be committed to the Press. For the Dispatch of this business Mr Downs & He, out of Cambridge Company, were sent for up to London, Where meeting their Four FellowLabourers, They went daily to Stationers Hall, and in Three quarters of a year fulfilled Their Task . . . Whilest they were conversant in this Last Business, He, & He only tooke Notes of Their Proceedings, which He diligently kept to His Dying day. 26 Walker had his information from Bois; nevertheless, what he gives us is second hand, and comes from much longer after the work than does the report to the Synod of Dort. So the report is more likely to be correct about the number of translators involved in the general meeting. The cause of Walker’s error, if that is what it is, seems straightforward: he did not know that two companies worked in each place, and so presumed there were only three companies. 27 If so we may take him as adding a minor detail to the report to the Synod of Dort, that each company sent two delegates, but we must set a question mark against all his evidence. Yet it is possible that Walker is, in his own way, true. First, it is a well-based assumption, but still an assumption, that there were six companies. This rests on the unequivocal evidence of the lists of translators that there were two groups working in each place. The individual groups could have been thought of as divisions of single companies, subcommittees of a committee (I have already noted the possibility that there were further subdivisions). While we are accustomed to reading rules 8 to 10 as using ‘company’ to refer to each of the six groups, rule 13 may be read as referring to three companies, each with two heads: ‘the directors in each company to be the Deans of Westminster and Chester for that place, and the King’s Professors in the Hebrewand Greek in each University’. It is also possible that, for some parts of the work, the two groups in one place acted as a single company. Another of Walker’s details fits with this, that three copies of the Bible were sent to London, that is, one from each place. If this is true, the pairs of companies put their work together. This may have been a simple matter of binding together the sheets of their master copies of the Bishops’ Bible, 26 Here I follow Walker’s manuscript, on which the printed account is based, as it is slightly more explicit about the copies of the Bible (British Library MS Harley 7053, fol. 42 v , p. 105 [there are two sets of numbers]; cf. Allen, Translating, pp. 139–41). 27 Allen makes the same suggestion, Translating, p. 7n. Making the text 19 which would have been enough to give each pair of groups a single identity. In short, Walker’s understanding of what was meant by ‘company’ may not be as wrong as it appears. 28 This would be trifling were it not that it suggests something of the way the translators may have worked. There still seems to be the numerical problem that either there were six men or there were twelve. We could solve this at a stroke if we changedour idea of the general meeting: what if it toosubdivided its work? This strains Walker’s statement that the meeting was ‘to reviewthe whole work’ but might account for his confusion in a different way from that just attempted. It might also fit with Bois’s notes themselves and with Walker’s further statement that the work took nine months, a statement that has been widely questioned. 29 Allen has shown that Bois’s notes are consistent with the idea of nine months work taking place in 1610. The notes contain page references to a volume of Chrysostom that appeared in 1610 but not to a volume that appeared in 1611, showing that the notes were made in 1610 and so lending credibility to the nine months (Translating for King James, pp. 9–10). This is, I think, beyond doubt. It raises a major question: what happened in 1609, the year that Eyre’s letter suggests is when the general meeting convened? If the meeting was not as general as has been previously supposed, the answer couldbe this: that it diddifferent parts of its workat different times involving different people. This idea has the further attraction in that it would help to account for puzzling features of Bois’s notes. Bois’s notes are remarkably incomplete if the general meeting involved all who attended it in working through the entire text and, in so doing, making at a minimumone sixth but possibly as much as a half of the textual changes that were still to be made. The notes cover discussion of the Epistles and Revelation only, forcing one to ask whether he was present only for this part of the work: either he took no notes on the bulk of the work or he was only involved with this part of it. 30 28 That Bois and Downes went from Cambridge to the general meeting is confirmed by Bois’s references to Downes in his notes. However, it cannot be taken as confirmation of how many people attended the meeting, since Bois and Downes could have gone either as representatives of the Apocrypha group or of the Cambridge translators at large. 29 For instance, Scrivener, who conflates the general meeting with supervising the printing: ‘it is clear, unless we reject his evidence altogether, that the printing, so far as the Translators superintended it at all, must have been begun and ended within the short period of nine months, which seems wholly inadequate for the accomplishment of all they had in hand’ (p. 13). 30 There is nothing to suggest that the notes themselves are only a part of the notes Bois took except one’s sense that there ought to be more of them; on the contrary, the discovery of another, independent copy of the notes with the same starting and finishing points makes it more likely that they are complete. See Norton, ‘Bois’s Notes’; Fulman’s manuscript of the notes is a copy of a copy, while the British Library copy (BL MS Harley 750, fols 3 r –16 r ) is probably a copy of the original. 20 A Textual History of the King James Bible The second puzzling feature of Bois’s notes is that they do not account for all the work that had to be done on the Epistles and Revelation. Much more workhappenedbetweenthe preparationof MS98andthe printingof the text than his notes account for. 2,974 changes were made independently of the preparation of MS 98, but Bois records just under 500 items of discussion, the majority of which concern the originals rather than particularities of English translation. Even if each of these items of discussion led to a change in the text (which did not happen), they would account for less than a twelth of the changes. It may be that he did not record all the discussions he was present at, but somewhere and somehow there is significantly more work to be accounted for. The annotated Bishops’ Bible There is one complete 1602 Bishops’ Bible with annotations by the transla- tors, Bodleian Library Bibl. Eng. 1602 b. 1. It is the most important evidence for the KJB text outside the first printings because it is the nearest we can get to the translators’ master copy. Yet it too presents major problems for understanding just how the work was done. Bod 1602, as I shall call it, appears now as a finely bound single volume, and there is nothing about its physical make-up to suggest that its sheets did not always belong together. But when the translators worked on it, it was unbound: the annotations frequently disappear into the fold of the leaf, which would have been impossible if the sheets were already bound. Consequently, it is possible that Bod 1602 represents not one of the forty Bishops’ Bibles supplied by Barker, but a combination of two or more of them. Because of this possibility, I will deal with the NT annotations separately from those in the OT. They clearly represent work in progress from the Oxford NTcompany. As Jacobs has shown, they are the work of three scribes and represent two stages of the work. 31 One scribe annotated Matthew and John 17, a second Mark and Luke 1–18, and a third Luke 19–24 and John 18–21. Moreover, there are corrections by one scribe in another scribe’s annotations. This part of Bod 1602, then, is not an individual’s but a com- pany copy, and the job of recording changes was shared around. One could understand an individual’s copy having annotations in some parts but not others as the result of some sort of absence fromwork, but tosee a company copy partially annotated in this way is very odd: why is the rest of the company’s work missing? Perhaps it is because the work was subdivided, 31 Jacobs, ‘King James’s Translators’, and Allen and Jacobs, pp. 3–30. Making the text 21 but this hardly accounts for the presence of annotations on the last chapters of John. If this is a mystery, so too is the intended purpose of this copy of the work. That it eventually became part of a single volume with work from other companies strongly suggests that it was sent to the general meeting. However, this does not fit with Walker’s statement that ‘Three Copys of the whole Bible [were] sent to London, one from Cambridge, a Second from Oxford, and a Third from Westminster’ because this surely means that a single complete copy was sent from each company. But we have seen that Walker is not necessarily reliable: it may be that the work was sent in parts, or it may be that a copy other than the official copy was taken to the meeting by one of the Oxford company. Whether or not the process was as orderly as Walker suggests, the NT part of Bod 1602 remains authentic evidence of the work of the translators before it was developed by the general meeting. Jacobs – accepting what is questioned here, that there was consultation as laid down in rules 9 and 10, and that it led to revisions in 1608 and 1609 – gives this summary of his analysis of the annotations: Collation argues that Stage 1 revisions are a record of the work of the Second Oxford Company completed by late 1607/early 1608. Stage 2 revisions, recorded by the three scribes during late 1608/1609, represent the results of the review of 1608 that the company accepted. At certain places, such as Luke 3:9 and 19:44, these results occasioneddifferences among the translators. The revisions making upstages 1 and 2 do not represent the complete text of the av Gospels. The work recorded by the Matthew scribe represents about two thirds of the av text; that recorded by the Mark/Luke scribe, about three-fourths; and that recorded by the Luke/John scribe about five-sixths. It is clear, therefore, that additional (Stage 3) revision took place in order to arrive at that version which has long been familiar to us as the Authorized Version. (Allen and Jacobs, p. 29) Jacobs’ analysis shows beyond doubt that the stage 2 revisions were not caused by changes of mind during a single discussion of the text, and there- fore that the company went over their work a second time. The inference that the second time followed reviewby other companies, however, must be weighed against the evidence that suggests such review did not take place. If it did not, we must simply observe that the Oxford NT company went over its work twice. It is unlikely that the stage 2 revisions were made by the general meeting because the same three scribes are involved, which goes against the evidence fromelsewhere that onlytwomembers of eachcompanyattendedthe general meeting. The NT annotations, then, show the decisions the Oxford NT company made in two stages prior to sending their work to the general meeting. As we turn to the OT annotations, the most perplexing thing about Bod 1602 becomes apparent: it is the extent of the annotations. They run from 22 A Textual History of the King James Bible the beginning of Genesis to the end of Isaiah 4, then the first four chapters of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel, and then fromHosea to the end of Malachi. So, as a whole, Bod 1602 represents work done at Westminster, Oxford and Cambridge and by four of the six companies. If there was evidence of breaks in the OT where the work of one company ceased and another began, Bod 1602’s status would be fairly clear: it began as a gathering together of the work of four companies. But the two places in the OT where one company’s work ends and another’s begins (first, the end of 2 Kings and the beginning of 1 Chronicles, second, the end of the Song of Songs and the beginning of Isaiah) both fall in the middle of a page and, though there are occasional changes of hand in the OT (for example, at the end of Joshua 18), there is no change of hand at either of these places. The likeliest inference is therefore that the OT annotations date fromthe general meeting, for this is when the work of the different companies came together. One of their other characteristics also points to this inference: there is little evidence of subsequent correction, 32 so, unlike the NT annotations, the OT annotations seem to represent the work at a single point in its history. Because the work on the text is about five-sixths complete, this point is unlikely to be the individual companies’ first draft. Bod 1602 may represent a transcript of the earlier work made for the general meeting, 33 or it may be a record of work done at the general meet- ing. Both possibilities present difficulties. A transcript makes sense if the companies had produced work in the form we see in the NT, that is, with revisions, and revisions of revisions, for parts of the OT are much more heavily revised than the Gospels and so would have been difficult to use as working copy. Alternatively, the work of the companies could already have been in the form represented by the OT work, in which case it is either a duplicate, allowing more people to see what the companies had done, or it is a back-up copy. Duplicates and back-ups have their uses, but they are modern concepts: the KJB was made long before the inventions of carbon paper and computer disks. So, if the OT work is a transcript, the likelihood is that it was made as a fair copy. The difficulty with this is that it appears to lack the crucial characteristic of fair copy, that it enables further work to be done: substantial portions of Bod 1602’s OT are so heavily annotated that no space remains for further work, and yet the annotations continue long after this would have become thoroughly apparent. There was a solution 32 Genesis 14, for instance, seems from the variation in the ink to have been worked over twice. 33 So think Willoughby and Jacobs. Willoughby takes them as a copy prepared in advance of the general meeting recording how far the various companies had gone with their work (pp. 23, 26). Jacobs argues that they represent ‘a valid record of a large portion of the work of the Old Testament translators as it existed in its finished state before it was sent to the General Meeting for final review’ (‘Two Stages’, p. 17). Making the text 23 to this difficulty: a final text could have been created from text in the form represented by the OT work by interleaving blank sheets and writing the remaining changes on them. The result would have been rife with possibil- ities of error, but printers did manage to produce good results from such material. The difficulty with supposing that the annotations record work done at the general meeting is simply that they leave so much work still to be done. Like the NT annotations, they do not represent the translators’ work in its final form. One sixth of the readings were still to be changed. The italics and the margin, both of which were given some attention in MS 98 and the NT annotations, are untouched. Chapter summaries still had to be created. 34 These matters constitute a lot of undone work, particularly as remaining readings, the italics and the margin all involve examining the text against the originals. All that can be safely concluded, therefore, is that the OT work is late but not final. Whether it includes work from the meeting or not, it still gives vital evidence about the near-complete state of the text. These possibilities do not necessarily contradict the conclusion that the NT work predates the general meeting. What may have happened is this: the NT sheets were sent to the general meeting as part of the Oxford work. There they were eventually gathered together with OT sheets that had this in common with them, that they too did not represent the general meeting’s final copy; whoever gathered them may have added unannotated sheets of the Apocrypha to create a complete Bible; in due course this complete Bible was acquired by the Bodleian library where it was at last bound into a single volume. Statistics – though they have a degree of roughness to them 35 – confirm that the OT work is late. Of 639 readings examined, Bod 1602 confirms 84% and differs in 16%; this is the proportion Jacobs notes in the work of the Luke/John scribe, and overall a higher proportion than that found in the NT work. In 229 instances (36%) Bod 1602 has no change marked and 1611 follows the Bishops’ Bible text. In 308 instances (48%) 1611 follows a change marked in Bod 1602. Eight times (1%) 1611 reverts to a Bishops’ Bible reading where Bod 1602 marks a change. In 49 instances (8%) no change is marked in Bod 1602 but 1611 gives a different reading, and in the final 45 instances (7%), a change is marked in Bod 1602 but a different 34 One editorial matter that the annotations do deal with is chapter division and verse num- bering. In several places these are revised. 35 The figures are not based on all the annotations (full analysis would be an enormous task), but on an analysis of places where there are variations in the printed history of the text; multiple instances of the same change have mostly been ignored, but notice is taken of places where more than one change is involved, even if that change does not show in the printed history. 24 A Textual History of the King James Bible change is found in 1611. That there are just over a hundred instances where the OT work in Bod 1602 does not give the 1611 reading shows that it was not the final copy and also rules out any possibility that it was a collation of 1611 with 1602 made after the KJB had been published. 36 It is therefore authentic and late but not final. A similar analysis of the NT annotations, that is, of places where there has been variation in the printed text (taking into account the roughness of such figures), gives a similar overall picture: of 76 readings, Bod 1602 confirms 77%. But there is also a significant difference: in 64 of the readings (84%) there is no annotation in Bod 1602 (49 are unchanged in 1611, 15 are changed). Only 12 of the readings involve annotations. 1611 follows a Bod 1602 change nine times, differs twice, and reverts to a 1602 reading once. So, whereas in the OT 56% of the readings relate to changes noted in Bod 1602, in the NT only 16% do. The OT is much more heavily annotated than the NT, and gives much more evidence for editorial judgements; it is the most important evidence for the text other than the printed text itself. It frequently confirms 1611 readings that later editors have found dubious, and it sometimes reveals where the printed text has gone wrong. Bod 1602 contains within it one good reason why it should be printed from: it had become so unwieldy in places because of the extent of the annotation that the translators may have felt that further interleaved correc- tions would have been too difficult both for themselves and for the printer. If they could have persuaded Barker to print an intermediate version for them they would have had a copy that preserved characteristics of Bod 1602 and the best possible material on which to do their final work. Such a fair copy could not have been proofs as we now understand them, for the amount of type involved (about five million characters) was probably more than Barker possessed and certainly would have been too much to be locked up in one project. Moreover, such a copy would have been unprecedented. If Barker did go to the considerable – and unprecedented – expense of printing a fair copy, the general meeting (perhaps) and the final edi- tors Thomas Bilson and Miles Smith marked it up with all the remaining work. This, I repeat, is guesswork, stretching possibilities in accordance with 36 Westcott, evidently relying oninformationfromothers, put forwardthis supposition: ‘inall probability it contains simply a scholar’s collation of the Royal and Bishops’ texts, with an attempt totrace the originof the corrections’ (p. 119 n.). Insome parts the annotations have been marked, in a different hand, with the letters g, t and j, identifying where the annotated change follows Geneva or Tremellius’s Latin Bible or Jerome’s Vulgate (so identified by Willoughby, p. 21). These markings could come from a curious later scholar, or they may represent some interest among the translators themselves inkeeping a track of their sources. Whoever made the effort, it was partial and imprecise: not all the places marked g coincide with Geneva. Making the text 25 modern ideas of sensible procedure: just how the last part of the work was done we will probably never know, apart from the fact that there was a final stage or two to it, the work done by Miles Smith and Thomas Bilson and the work done by the printer. These stages created some more manuscript, but it may have been no more than chapter summaries and the dedication and preface. A contribution from the printer? The King’s Printer Robert Barker influenced, as anyprinter must, the appear- ance and some of the characteristics of the text. He and his men also influ- enced the readings in the text by making errors. But it is also possible that he deliberately made changes to the translators’ work. There are a num- ber of clear examples in the history of the KJB’s printing of compositors introducing deliberate, irresponsible changes. For example, the substitu- tion of ‘Printers’ for ‘Princes’ in ‘Princes have persecuted without a cause’ 37 is obviously an expression of employee dissatisfaction rather than an error. If a compositor could make irresponsible changes, a printer could make responsible changes, especially as editorial responsibility for the text was usually in his hands. This happened in the time of Barker’s father Christopher. He it was who printed the Bishops’ Bible, and the development of that Bible’s text noted above (p. 5) probably took place in his printing house rather than in the studies of leading churchmen. In his early days as a Bible printer, he retained ‘three learned men for a long time for the printing of the said bibles, and correcting such small faultes as had escaped in the former prints thereof ’. 38 There is no direct evidence that this practice continued into the time of the KJB, but some reason to think that it did. Some of the changes introduced into Robert Barker’s successive printings of the KJB are scholarly, either the work of some representative of the translators or of ‘learned men’ retained by Barker and his successors. I guess that representatives of the translators were involvedwiththe first printing, perhaps along witha scholar or scholars retained by Barker, but that thereafter the responsibility for the text rested withBarker, whoretainedat least one personcapable of advisingondoubtful points. One other piece of evidence supports this guess. When Cambridge University Press issued its first edition in 1629, the fact that some of the original translators were involved in the work is remarked on; this is less 37 Ps. 119:161; found in some copies of Barker’s first octavo edition (1612). See H315. 38 ‘Barker’s circular the city companies’ (undated), Pollard, p. 138. 26 A Textual History of the King James Bible likely to have been worth remarking had it been standard practice in the previous printings. The final copy Smith and Bilson’s work probably merged with the printer’s work, and it may well be that the very bulky final copy did not contain all that finally appeared in print: some of the text may have been created as it was being set. For this reason it is safer to think of it as final copy rather than as the master copy. Only a little is known of what happened to it, and that little does not reveal anything of its nature. Apamphlet of 1651 declares ‘that the sole right of printing of the Bible was Matthew Barker’s, in regard that his father paid for the amended or corrected translation £3,500, “by reason whereof the translated copy did of right belong to him” ’. 39 An entry in the Stationers’ Register by Oliver Cromwell allocating Bible printing to the printers Henry Hills and John Field was objected to in 1656 on the grounds ‘that the Bible copy was not Barker’s, but Bill’s, and that it was only held in trust for Bill’. 40 Later in the same year a new edition of the Bible by Field and Hills was advertised as ‘being examined, corrected, and amended according to the Original Manuscript Copy of the Translators’. 41 This copy, they say, cost them £1,200. There are some grounds for treating this evidence with suspicion: it is advertising and, though we cannot tell which edition is being referred to, none of Field’s or Hill’s editions from1656 to the end of the Commonwealth shows any signs of care or correction: rather, they were notoriously poor. Whatever it was that Field and Hills had purchased, its real value was not the light it shed on the text but the added authority it gave to their claim to have a monopoly on the printing of the KJB. The later references to the original are all second-hand and of little value. William Kilburne refers to Hills and Field ‘purchasing the translated coppy, made in An. 1611 ◦ ’, and he also alludes to ‘the Original’ in his ‘Humble pro- posals’. 42 Apamphlet printed about June 1660 repeats Hills and Field’s claim in an attack on them: they have ‘obtained, (and now keep in their actuall possession) the Manuscript Copy of the last Translation of the holy Bible in English (attested with the hands of the Venerable and learned Translators in 39 Plomer, p. 370; the date is given by Herbert, p. 132. 40 McKitterick, I, p. 462 n. 89, with reference to Calendar of state papers domestic, ed. R. Lemon et al. (1856–), 1655–6, p. 289. 41 Mercurius politicus, no. 334, 29 Oct.–6 Nov. 1656, p. 7366; as given in McKitterick, I, p. 326. 42 Kilburne, p. 14; ‘Humble proposals’, as given in McKitterick, I, p. 388. Kilburne is discussed in chapter 5. Making the text 27 King James his time) ever since 6 March 1655’. 43 Finally, in a lawsuit against Christopher Barker, Roger Norton refers to ‘the moiety of a manuscript of a Bible in English called the Bible of K. James his translation’. 44 Perhaps the partial or half manuscript (‘the moiety of a manuscript’) is not the same manuscript as that referredtointhe other references: not impossibly, it could refer to Bod 1602, or to another Bishops’ Bible supplying the annotations for the remaining parts of the Bible. Arber, after quoting extensively fromthe 1660 pamphlet, observes: ‘unless therefore the autographic-attested manuscript of our present common Version be still hidden away in some recess awaiting its future happy recoverer; it probably perished in the great Fire of London in 1666 A.D.’ 45 This may be right, but we are entitled to wonder whether these common- wealth testimonies point to a definitive final manuscript. Conclusion Given the incompleteness of the evidence and the puzzles it contains, the best solution is to recognise that, while we now have more evidence than previous historians, just howthe translators workedremains mysterious. We have illuminating glimpses of a complex process, but crucial pieces of the puzzle are still missing. Until now, historians of the making of the KJB have interpreted the available evidence as showing an orderly, collective process such as went into the making of the Revised Version. Various hints and gaps in the evidence, it seems to me, tend towards a more muddled picture wherein the KJB stands partway between the orderly committee work of the Revised Version and the individualism of the Bishops’ Bible. Small group and perhaps individual work contributed to final product, and the rules for the work, from which an ordered picture is easily inferred, were not as literally and uniformly followed as has been imagined. It is time to put best guesses on the evidence and possibilities. Six compa- nies produced draft translations between 1604 and 1608. They sometimes subdivided their work and they went over it twice. MS 98 represents first- draft work; at this stage about half the eventual readings had been settled. Bod 1602’s NTannotations represent work as it left the hands of the compa- nies, with in places five-sixths of the readings settled. The work was called in in 1608, and the companies forwarded it to the general meeting in the form of annotations to the Bishops’ Bible text. The general meeting had working 43 The London Printers Lamentacon, or, the Press opprest, and overprest; as given in Arber, III, p. 28. 44 Plomer, p. 373; the lawsuit is no earlier than 1664. 45 Arber, III, p. 28; Herbert follows this suggestion, p. 131. 28 A Textual History of the King James Bible copies made of some of the submitted work (Bod 1602’s OT work is one of these). It worked over these in small groups in 1609 and 1610, producing as final copy a heavily annotated and interleaved Bishops’ Bible. John Bois’s notes give a glimpse of the work done in 1610. In 1610 and 1611, two men worked over the whole text in co-operation with the printer, establishing the KJB as first printed in 1611. Whatever manuscripts there might have been, this, with the second printing, effectively became the master copy of the KJB. 2 Pre-1611 evidence for the text Introduction There are two main kinds of pre-1611 evidence for the text of the KJB: the sources, and the written or printed versions directly, physically involved in the making of the translation. The sources are, of course, the original language texts (Hebrew and Greek), the ancient translations (particularly the Vulgate and the Septuagint), modern translations (including Luther’s German and the Latin of Tremellius and Junius) and the earlier English translations. These contribute intellectually (and of course crucially – without themthere wouldbe noKJB) but not physically tothe KJB. Crossing the line between an intellectual and a physical source is the Bishops’ Bible of 1602. In a sense Bois’s notes also cross the line, for they are evidence of the intellectual process that led to the text. MS 98 and the annotations in Bod 1602 are physical sources. Though they contain no direct evidence of the thinking that led to particular readings, they show the particularities of the text being established. Until nowthese physical sources have not been used for editorial work on the text: whatever they might tell about why the 1611 text reads as it does has been ignored. On the other hand, the chief intellectual sources, the original language texts, have been treated as direct evidence for how the text of the KJB should read. This is a natural way of working: errors in the printed text of 1611 may be discovered by reference to the originals. But it is also a dangerous way of working because there are two basic kinds of error to be found in a translation: mechanical and intellectual. The former are usually errors of transcription and printing, the latter are errors of translation. If we accept that the text of the KJB should present the translators’ understanding of the originals as they meant to express it, then only mechanical errors can be corrected – errors where an accident of some sort has led to a misrepre- sentation of the translators’ understanding or expression. Intellectual errors must stand unless one is making a new version. Attention to the physical sources shows that editorial development of the text has not distinguished between accidental errors and ‘errors’ of transla- tion, that is, readings that have been judged to be errors but that were delib- erate creations of the translators. Working from the intellectual sources, the original-language texts, editors have corrected both kinds of error. Nor have 30 A Textual History of the King James Bible they always kept themselves to matters that are clearly errors. Sometimes they have, by their lights, improved the text. I want now to explore – within specific limits – the kind of information the physical sources give for the text. The principal limit is this: I have confined myself to places where there is some variation between the first printing and the text as we now have it (with attention to some of the variations that have come inbut have beendiscardedfrommoderneditions). The question of whether these manuscript materials might give evidence for changes to the 1611 text that have never yet been made has not been broached. There is a limit of another sort involved here: a complete collation of the main editions of the KJB is not yet practical, and it might not add much of value for understanding what is and what ought to be in the text. Various collations have been made, leading to a good knowledge of where changes have occurred in the text. The most important work was done by Scrivener, and its results published in The Authorized Edition of the English Bible. Other collations have contributed to a fuller picture not only of the textual variations, but also of the unavoidable human frailty involved in such work. 1 I have drawn on all these in compiling a list of the variants in the text and have used this list as the basis for examining individual texts. So the observations that follow are based on study of roughly 1,550 2 significant variations (that is, variations in wording or in the spelling of names, but, for the most part, not variations of punctuation or spelling, nor variations that are clearly printer’s errors). Considering the size of the Bible, 1,550 is perhaps a comfortingly small number, not much more thanone per chapter. On the other hand, it is large enough to give a good sense of the quality of the individual editions. MS 98 MS 98 has readings for 59 of the 94 variant readings or spellings of names in the Epistles. In relation to the 1602 text, half are identical, half make some change. In relation to the KJB, 20 are of little importance: 1602, MS 98 and 1611 all have the same reading. More significantly, 5 preserve a 1602 reading 1 I have drawn on the following: Gilbert Buchanan’s annotations in his copy of Blayney’s Oxford edition of 1769 of the variations from a second edition KJB in his possession (now held by Cambridge University Library, Adv. bb. 77. 2); a collation of the first edition and the 1613 folio (H322) prefixed to the 1833 Exact Reprint; William Aldis Wright’s collation of the first two editions prefixed to his 1909 edition of the 1611 KJB, I, pp. vii–xxiii. 2 ‘Roughly’, because the count becomes somewhat confused when there are repeated exam- ples. 57% (881) come in the OT, 24% (376) in the Apocrypha, and 19% (291) in the NT. Pre-1611 evidence for the text 31 which the KJB translators changed but which was finally changed back to the 1602 reading. 3 Of the 30 readings that differ from 1602, 7 differ from both 1602 and the KJB, 4 11 agree with the KJB and 12 agree with readings introduced into the KJB after 1611; in one case MS 98’s margin gives the KJB text (1 Cor. 11:2). The readings that differ from the Bishops’ Bible of 1602 and are iden- tical with 1611 are the most important. Unless the same mistake was made twice, that is, unless MS 98 accidentally changed either the 1602 text or the translators’ annotation, and then the printer made the same acciden- tal change (which is unlikely but not impossible), these readings confirm that what appears in the printed text was the creation of the translators. We might speculate that some of the readings were created accidentally, but this makes little difference in practice: they entered the text at an early stage of its composition and survived several reviews by the translators before being printed, so becoming in effect deliberate parts of the work. Now, if a later edition makes a change to these, either that change is itself an error or it comes from the editor presuming to know better than the translators. Some of the readings showthe translators going against a literal rendering that all their predecessors were agreed upon on. Without the evidence of MS 98 several such readings might be taken as printer’s errors. 2 Cor. 8:21 is a case in point. 1611 gives ‘but in the sight’ instead of its predecessors’ ‘but also in the sight’ for óììc sci tvcticv. MS 98 has 1611’s reading, proving that the omission is the work of the translators: since ‘also’ was in the 1602 text, they must have struck through it there. The same logic holds for the omission of ‘amen’ at Eph. 6:24. Apparent omissions are easily taken as accidental, especially as there are accidental omissions in the printing of 1611, for instance at 2 Cor. 11:32 where ‘of the Damascenes’ is missing. Similarly, a single letter can easily be a misprint, and can also be important to the theological import. MS 98 shows that the translators deliberately changed all their predecessors’ ‘unto’ to ‘into’ at 1 Pet. 5:10, giving: ‘who hath called vs into his eternall glory’. Where 1611 reverts to a reading from one of its predecessors and the possibility of inferring a printer’s error is slighter, MS 98’s evidence is less important: it does no more than fill out the picture of what happened. At Rom. 12:2 the 1602 Bishops’ Bible reads: ‘that ye may proue what is the good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God’. 1611 has two changes: ‘that ye may proue what is that good, that acceptable and perfect will of God’ (changes italicised). In 1629 the second ‘that’ was changed back to ‘and’, giving the reading that remains in the text: ‘that ye may prove what is that 3 1 Cor. 7:32; 13:2; 1 Tim. 1:4; 2 Tim. 2:19; Heb. 11:32. 4 Rom. 10:21; 14:10; 2 Cor. 5:2, 20; 8:7; 9:5; 1 Pet. 2:6. 32 A Textual History of the King James Bible good, and acceptable, and perfect will of God’. Here the 1629 editors have observed that the Greek reads sci toópto:cv, literally, ‘and acceptable’. They have therefore corrected the English by the Greek. Without MS 98 we might have guessed that 1611’s reading was deliberate. It restores an older reading, Tyndale’s; this looks like choice, not accident. The result is that ‘acceptable and perfect’ appears as an elaboration of what is meant by ‘good’. MS 98 confirms that the rejection of the literal reading is deliberate, and locates the change in the first period of revision. Here the translators placed other considerations ahead of word-for-word fidelity. In each of these cases later editors have decided 1611 was wrong and have restored the old readings. Perhaps the old readings were better, perhaps not: MS 98 proves (or confirms, as in the last example) that the KJB translators judged that they were not. The later editors, perhaps unknowingly, have undone the translators’ work. The status of the 12 readings where MS 98 agrees with a later editor’s change against the 1611 reading needs some consideration. They are: Ref. MS 98 and modern KJBs 1611 Date restored Rom. 7:13 Was then that Was that then 1612 Rom. 14:6 He that regardeth the day He that regardeth a day 1629 1 Cor. 7:32 things that belong things that belongeth 1612 1 Cor. 12:28 helps, governments helpes in gouerm¯ etes 1629 1 Cor. 13:2 have not charity haue no charitie 1762 1 Cor. 15:6 After that And that 1616 2 Cor. 11:32 the city of the Damascenes the citie 1629 1 Tim. 1:4 godly edifying edifying 1638 2 Tim. 2:19 this seal the seal 1617 James 5:2 your garments are motheaten your garments motheaten 1638 1 Pet. 2:1 all evil speakings euill speakings 1629 Jude 25 both now and ever now and euer 1638 To take errors first: MS 98 has ‘of the Damascenes’ at 2 Cor. 11:32, helping to confirm that the omission was a later accident. 1611 begins 1 Cor. 15:6, ‘and that’. MS 98 follows the other translations (except for Rheims), giving the reading reintroduced in 1616, ‘after that’; this translates ttti:c, which also begins the next verse, and is given there as ‘after that’ by 1611. 1611’s mistranslation looks like a printer’s error, as if the printer’s eye has slipped back to the similar beginning of the previous verse, verse 5. That this is indeed what happened is confirmed by the verse being misnumbered 5. MS 98 is not essential for the identification of the error, but again it helps to confirm it by showing that the translators’ first thought was to retain the 1602 reading. Pre-1611 evidence for the text 33 Another example of error – or possible error – underlines the limitations of MS 98 as evidence. 1611 reads somewhat strangely at Rom. 14:6: ‘he that regardeth a day, regardeth it vnto the Lord; and hee that regardeth not the day, to the Lord hee doeth not regard it’. The oddness lies in ‘regardeth a day’ followed by ‘regardeth the day’. MS 98 shows that, in the first stage of their work, the translators intended to retain 1602’s literal ‘the day’ at the beginning. 1629 restored this reading. Had MS 98 given 1611’s reading ‘a day’, it would have shown clearly that the translators themselves had made the change, but, by preserving the literal reading, it does no more than narrow down when the problem occurred. Either the translators made this change in their final revisions or it is a printer’s error. Because the same Greek occurs later in the verse, and is there given as ‘the day’ in 1611, there is reason to judge that there is a printer’s error. An appeal to Tyndale, who gives ‘one day’ in both places, merely complicates: ‘a day’ has much the same sense as ‘one day’, so it may be intentional. However, the second use needs to be the same as the first to make decent sense. The translators could have intended to use ‘a day’ in both places. In this case the printed text is still wrong, but in a different place. In this verse, then, there probably is a printer’s error, so the 1602 Bishops’ Bible’s, MS 98’s and 1629’s reading should be followed. By itself, MS 98 is not crucial to this judgement. In another case MS 98 complicates without clarifying, and the limitations of using the evidence of an intermediate draft are again shown. Romans 7:13 begins alike in 1602 and in 1611, ‘was that then’. ‘That then’ follows the order of the Greek, :c cov. The 1612 quartos, followed by 1616, 1629 and all subsequent editions, reverse the order, ‘was then that’, which is MS 98’s reading. Both renderings are possible; 1611 is closest to the Greek, but it is difficult to make a stylistic judgement between the two. Unless we can take MS 98 as confirming that the 1612 reading was what the translators intended, 1611’s reading must be taken as deliberate. But we cannot take MS 98 in this way because it is not the translators’ final version. Rather, it suggests possibilities: either the translators made a change and then unmade it, or they failed to notice a change that they had made in preparing the final copy, or the scribe copied incorrectly or the printer set the text incorrectly. There may have been an error of transmission, but 1611’s reading has to be taken as the translators’ preference. The spelling of names is a slightly different matter from readings. It sits uneasily between matters of scholarship and conventions of spelling. One that MS 98 sheds light on is useful here, both for introducing the difficulties involved and for showing more of MS 98’s status as evidence for the text. MS 98 shows that the translators originally decided to followthe Greek spelling, Atcììc,, ‘Apollos’, exactly in1 Corinthians; then, as the printed text shows, they changed their mind and used ‘Apollo’ seven times and ‘Apollos’ three 34 A Textual History of the King James Bible (Acts 18:24; 1 Cor. 16:12; Titus 3:13). 5 Seven changes of ‘Apollos’ to ‘Apollo’ looks deliberate, especially as it does not fully coincide with 1602, which reads ‘Apollo’ everywhere in 1 Corinthians (but not elsewhere) except for ‘Apollos’ at 4:6. Illuminating as this is, it is important to note that the evidence of MS 98 couldonlypoint inonedirection. Here, havingadifferent readingfrom1611, it shows that 1611 has a deliberate change. But had it had the same reading as 1611, it would also have showed that 1611’s reading was deliberate. So what MS 98 really does here, rather than arbitrating between two readings, is to show when the change was made. Bois’s notes Limited as Bois’s notes are as evidence of how all the work was done, they are invaluable for the unique insight they give into discussions among the translators while they were at work. However, they bear on only three read- ings that are contentious in the textual history of the KJB. Two of them are of special interest in relation to MS 98 (the third is 1 Cor. 4:9). 1 Corinthians 12:28 is particularly problematic. Here MS 98 has the literal reading that was reintroduced in 1629, ‘helps, governments’ for óv:iìn¸ti,, suµtpvnoti,. 1611, uniquely and apparently without justification from the Greek, reads ‘helpes ingouernm¯ ets’. That MS 98 differs from1602’s ‘helpers, gouernours’ confirms that the 1629 reading follows the translators’ first thoughts. The problemis to determine whether they hadsecondthoughts or whether the printer, accidentally or deliberately, changed their work. Bois’s notes prove the translators thought further during the final revision. He notes of ouvóuti, in the next verse, ‘abstract for the concrete; and, thus per- haps inóv:iìn¸ti,, inthe preceding verse’ (Allen, Translating for King James, p. 49). Perhaps this thought produced ‘helps in governments’. Rather than explaining the reading, the note confirms what one must always presume: that, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, one must take the 1611 text as deliberate. However dubious the reading here may seem, it should stand. The most illuminating example of MS 98 and Bois’s notes together is 2 Cor. 9:5. MS 98 confirms that this is a deliberate revision of a revision wherein the translators chose not to be absolutely literal. Bois gives another English form, ‘as a bounty, and not as a thing extorted’, showing that the general meetingconsideredyet another rendering. He brings out the point of this, that it refers ‘bounty’ to the Corinthians and extortion to the disciples; 5 MS 98 does not have entries for all the verses, but is consistent in the verses it does give. Pre-1611 evidence for the text 35 he disagrees with this understanding. 6 The printed version, ‘as a matter of bountie, not of couetousnesse’, shows that the disagreement was effective: the English is ambiguous as is the Greek, but now the natural reading is to take ‘bounty’ and ‘covetousness’ as referring to the Corinthians. The omission of ‘as of’ brings the two words still closer. The Bishops’ Bible of 1602 The KJB of 1611 reproduces peculiarities of the Bishops’ Bible, some of which are found only in the 1602 printing. These confirm that it was the original physical copy, something that is important in relation not just to the annotations in Bod 1602, but also to the matter of the base text for the KJB. The 1602 Bishops’ Bible frequently differs from the original 1568 text, so much so that in parts such as the Psalms it ought to be thought of as a new version. 7 So it is not the Bishops’ Bible of 1568 that is the basis for the text, and any collation of the KJB with the Bishops’ Bible has to be with the 1602 text. Some examples will prove the point. In the original Bishops’ Bible the Hebrew name ;Ø ¬). is, consistently, ‘Aialon’, but the 1611 KJB follows the variations of the 1602 text exactly, giving ‘Aialon’, ‘Aiialon’ and ‘Aijalon’. 8 It is worthwhile speculating what caused this variety. 1568’s ‘Aialon’ has the merit of being consistent but is incorrect because the yod (the i or j in the English) is doubled. This was realised by one of Barker’s scholars, who made the correction on the five occasions when he noticed the problem; moreover, he did it in two indifferent ways, four times with double i, once with ij (unless this is a printer’s variation). So the KJB translators inherited anincompletely corrected text, and apparently failed to notice that there was still a problem in at least five places. 6 Here is the note as Allen gives it, following the English; the Latin is translated into English: ‘it is asked whether the subject [of] toìc,ic, [of bounty] and tìtcvt¸ic, [of covetousness] be the same: I think that both designations ought to be referred to the Corinthians; not, on the contrary, the word toìc,icv [bounty] to the Corinthians, and the word tìtcvt¸icv [covetousness] to the Apostles, as the majority of my colleagues, toìc,icv oucv [your bounty] and tìtcvt¸icv nucv [our covetousness]’ (Translating for King James, p. 51). 7 Edgar J. Goodspeed observes that his ‘copies of the later printings of the Bishops’ (1576, etc.) vary so strikingly from the edition of 1568 that it has become clear that much of the revision that eventually found a place in the King James of 1611 was made in the course of tacit revision of the Bishops’ in its successive printings. The Bishops’ Bible was not so much a text as a textual process’ (Goodspeed, p. iii). My previous disagreement with this statement is wrong (Norton, History, I, p. 116 n). Considerable work needs to be done on the Bishops’ Bible to establish the extent of the variation between printings and, more interestingly, to try to understand how these happened. 8 ‘Aialon’: Josh. 10:12; 1 Chr. 6:69; 8:13; 2 Chr. 11:10; 28:18. ‘Aiialon’: Josh. 19:42; Judg. 1:35; 12:12; 1 Sam. 14:31. ‘Aijalon’: Josh. 21:24 (and twice in front matter). 36 A Textual History of the King James Bible This variation of spelling, important as it is for showing what the KJB was printed from, is also important for establishing that the translators were fallible intheir attentiontothe text: sometimes theynodded. Twoclear errors and two readings that are probably errors also show fallibility. The first of the errors comes at 1 Kgs 8:61, where the KJB reproduced 1602’s ‘the Lord your God’ for :Zn2 ¬…¬π, ‘the Lord our God’. The second is ‘Amorites’ for ‘Ammonites’ (1 Kgs 11:5). In both cases earlier editions of the Bishops’ Bible and the other versions all had the correct reading; the errors were picked up and corrected in 1629. The present tense at Acts 23:3, ‘then saith Paul’, where the Greek and the context require the past, also comes from the 1602 text, where, one guesses, the printer carelessly put ‘saith’ for the earlier editions’ ‘said’. It is difficult to see how the retention of this reading could be anything but an error: the KJB translators may not have noticed the mistake, or they may have failed to mark it, or their printer may have failed to notice their annotation. The initial error, then, was probably the printer’s. We cannot tell whose fault its reproduction was, but we do know that it was, again, the 1629 editors who made the correction. ‘Saith Paul’ is, I think, less sure to be an error than ‘your God’. A little less certain still is the singular ‘man of activity’ in ‘if thou knowest any man of actiuitie amongst them, then make them rulers ouer my cattell’ (Gen. 47:6). There are four good reasons for thinking this an error: the singular is inconsistent with ‘make them rulers’, the Hebrew is plural, the same Hebrew is translated as plural in the other places where it occurs, and all the previous translations recognised that it was plural. So the reading’s survival from1568 to 1602, then into the KJB, where it remained until 1762, looks very like carelessness and probably shows the tenacity of the tiny in the face of man’s best efforts. But one must be cautious: that the reading survived for 200 years shows that a significant number of careful scholars did not perceive that it was an error. Either this happened through carelessness or because they found the reading acceptable. What finally makes the former possibility the likely one is that it is impossible to finda justificationfor the singular. Ina case like this, where there is strong reason to suspect an error of a quite simple sort and there is no direct evidence that the translators created the reading, one has to have some understanding of how the reading might not be considered an error to allow it to stand (the discussion of ‘strain at a gnat’, below, p. 45, shows how such an understanding can be decisive). Overall, there are some 250 variants where the first edition preserves a 1602 reading. The only surprise in this figure is that it is so low – the first instruction to the translators had, after all, been to followthe Bishops’ Bible and keep it ‘as little altered as the truth of the original will permit’. That they left unchanged only 16%of the readings that have become contentious suggests how thoroughly they worked. Pre-1611 evidence for the text 37 Bod 1602 Some of the details of annotation in Bod 1602 show either that parts of the KJB were printed from it or that it is, in places, an exact source for – or copy of – the printer’s master copy. Again the spelling of names is revealing. The 1602 text spells Noah’s first son ‘Sem’ throughout, and this is followed by 1611 until Genesis 9, where he becomes, more correctly, ‘Shem’. The change in spelling exactly follows Bod 1602: the translators began inserting an h from chapter 9 on. This reflects something that happens a number of times, inthe work of editors as well as of the translators: a change is decidedonafter several examples of the need for it have occurred, but there is no looking back to the earlier examples. Moreover, it shows work being done in a linear fashion, apparently once only. As I have already suggested, the large number of differences between Bod 1602 and the KJB of 1611 make it extremely unlikely that Bod 1602 was made from the printed text as some sort of collation of differences. But the possibility remains open froman example such as Sem/Shemthat Bod 1602 is not a direct source for the KJB text – that is an uncle rather than a father. It could perhaps be transcribed from or made simultaneously with the final copy. Another variationinthe spelling of a name seems tosettle this question because it derives fromthe particular nature of the annotations in Bod 1602. ‘Ishmael’ occurs forty-seven times in the OT; at 1 Chr. 9:44, 1611 gives the form consistently used in the Bishops’ Bible, ‘Ismael’. 9 What looks like carelessness on the printer’s part is probably due to difficulties in following Bod 1602: h is inserted but only visible if one looks very closely because the insertion is obscured by other work. This makes it highly probable that the relationship of Bod 1602 to 1611 is paternal or grand-paternal rather than avuncular, for the reading descends directly froma scribal peculiarity of Bod 1602. Examples of this sort show that the annotations in Bod 1602 are highly important as evidence for the text of the KJB and have a status that all the other evidence lacks: the annotations show deliberate acts of the translators that led directly to the first printed text. In the first place the contrast is with the printed 1602 text. In many places this leads directly to the 1611 text but, without evidence of annotation, we can never knowwhether this represents a deliberate decision – an invisible ‘stet’ against the reading – or either the translators’ accidental failure to annotate or the printer’s accidental following of the printed exemplar where there was an annotation. In the second place the contrast is with the 1611 text itself: though almost all we read in it is the result of deliberate creation by the translators, alone it never reveals which bits of the text are accidents of some sort. 9 ‘Ismael’ also comes twice in the Apocrypha (1 Esdras 9:22; Judith 2:23); there the spelling is dictated by the Greek, and the Hebraic ‘Ishmael’ is not used. 38 A Textual History of the King James Bible The most striking example of Bod 1602 as evidence for the text comes at Hos. 6:5. Here what appears to be a misprint that was immediately corrected in subsequent editions is shown to be a deliberate creation of the translators. As we have receivedthe KJBtext, it reads, ‘therefore have I hewedthemby the prophets; I have slain themby the words of my mouth’. ‘Have I hewed them’ corresponds to the earlier versions’ ‘haue I cut down’; it is a good literal rendering of the Hebrew and goes appropriately with ‘I have slain them’. Now, the first printing has ‘shewed’ for ‘hewed’. This is not the literal sense of the Hebrew, and later editors apparently had every justification in rejecting it as a misprint. In Bod 1602 ‘cut down’ is struck through and ‘shewed’ substituted. So, if ‘shewed’ is an error, it is not the printer’s but the translators’: either the scribe’s pen slipped or they made a mistake. If it is a mistake, the immediate problem is to understand how the translators came to make it. The exegetical difficulty is the violent presentation of God (the speaker here). A Geneva annotation explains the sense this way: ‘I haue still laboured by my prophets, and as it were, framed you to bring you to amendement, but all was in vaine: for my word was not meate to feede them, but a sworde to slaye them’. God’s word, which should have led to reform of life, has beenignored, so, rather thansaving, it condemns. Figuratively, what shouldhave beenfoodhas become a sword. The first KJB’s ‘shewed’ seems to respond to this note, removing the figurative sense and rephrasing the note’s ‘laboured by my prophets’ with ‘shewed themby the prophets’. Here we have a glimpse of what may have been in the translators’ minds, but it does not seem enough to explain what now appears as a paraphrastic removal of an image through theological embarrassment. The KJB is too steadfastly literal for this. Yet the Geneva note points in the right direction. The Aramaic translation-paraphrase of the prophets, Targum Jonathan, could well have been taken by the translators as having a certain authority. It reads ;:r¬¬:x¬, ‘I warned them’, so giving the sense found in the Geneva note. 10 If the translators were swayed by TargumJonathan here, they would have thought of their rendering as the true meaning of the text, as discovered through their researches. Bod 1602 demonstrates that ‘shewed’ was deliberate, the Geneva note hints at a reason for it, and Targum Jonathan makes clear that there was indeed reason for ‘shewed’. At this point, an editor who would keep ‘hewed’ in the text must recognise that to do so is to make a decision not on the text but on the translation. 10 Sperber, ed., III, p. 395. Cathcart translates the whole verse, ‘because I warnedthemthrough the mission of my prophets and they did not repent, I have brought killers against them, for they transgressed the Memra of my will’. After noting the Hebrew reading, he oberves that the Targum ‘avoids the idea of God “killing”, by placing that activity in the hands of agents sent by the Lord. Tg. Prophets has frequent references to the nation’s refusal to take notice of the message of the prophets and repent’ (Gordon and Cathcart, pp. 41–2). Acopy of Targum Jonathan was in the Bodleian Library at the time the Oxford translators were working on the prophets (Daiches, p. 166). Pre-1611 evidence for the text 39 Plate 1. Genesis 15–16 from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, with annotations by the KJB translators. The unique importance of Bod 1602 as evidence for the text is clear. It sounds a warning against over-presumption of error in the first printed text because it sometimes shows that what would otherwise look like an error is the deliberate work of the translators. None of the other evidence does this. Now, the example just given involved apparent typographical error and turned on the coincidence that the deletion of a single letter could 40 A Textual History of the King James Bible restore the generally accepted meaning. There would have been no issue if the translators had written, say, ‘warned’ instead of ‘shewed’, for then their understanding would have been unambiguous, and it would have been left to a revised translation rather than to editors to make the change. One might take the translators’ insertion of an ‘s’ at the beginning of ‘hewed’ as an example of ingenious fidelity to the first rule given to the translators, to alter the Bishops’ Bible ‘as little . . . as the truth of the orig- inal will permit’. There are not enough such examples to show that such minimalist revision was something the translators deliberately strove for (especially when set against the constant examples, especially in the OT and Apocrypha, of substantial rewriting), but another of these minimalist revi- sions ushers in a group of revisions that is very important for revealing the kinds of decisions editors have made and must nowmake in the light of Bod 1602. It comes in 2 Chr. 32:5: 1602 Modern KJBs And Hezekia went to lustily, and built vp the wall where it was broken, and made the towers, and another wall without, and repaired Millo in the citie of Dauid. Also he strengthened himself, and built up all the wall that was broken, and raised it up to the towers, and another wall without, and repaired Millo in the city of David Only the last two phrases appear untouched, yet the translators did revise ‘repaired Millo’: they inserted p at the beginning and deleted the i, creating ‘prepared Millo’. In 1616 ‘repaired’ found its way back into the text, and has remained there ever since. The crucial point is this: a later edition gives a reading that the translators had explicitly rejected, and this rejected read- ing has become our received reading. The evidence of Bod 1602 makes it impossible to take ‘prepared’ as an accident, so an editor must now choose whether to followthe translators or tradition – knowing that the traditional or received reading comes from the understanding of someone in Barker’s printing house. Again an explanation can be hazarded as to the reasons for the change and for its reversal. x¬PU r0 ;: \π© is now usually translated, ‘and strength- ened Millo’ (Revised Version, etc.). The difference in sense from ‘repaired’ is that ‘strengthened’ does not imply previous damage. ‘Prepared’ similarly omits the suggestion of damage, and this sense of the meaning presumably prompted the translators. They avoided repeating ‘strengthened’ from ear- lier in the verse, either because this was a way of marking that there the Hebrew uses a different form of the same verb, or simply for variation – in the words of their preface, not tying themselves to an identity of words, but using another wordno less fit as commodiously. 11 One might well argue that 11 ‘The Translators to the Reader’, fol. B2 v . Pre-1611 evidence for the text 41 ‘prepared’ is indeed ‘less fit’, that it is a vague, unsatisfactory word to have used here, and then be puzzled as to why it is used at all since nowhere else is ;ºk translated as ‘prepare’. Certainly, somebody involved with the printing of the 1616 edition failed to discern the translators’ motive and meaning, and so restored the Bishops’ Bible’s word. One more typical example: 2 Chr. 6:27 now reads ‘and send rain upon thy land, which thou hast given unto thy people for an inheritance’. This is also how it read in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible, with ‘vpon thy land’ translating ¸≥ì. ¬¡ literally. The KJB originally read, ‘upon the land’, and Bod 1602 shows the translators rejecting what has become the received reading. They struckthrough‘thy’ andsubstituted‘the’. Then, tryingthe text bythe Hebrew (one presumes), the editors of the Cambridge edition of 1638 observed that ‘the land’ was not literally accurate, and so ‘corrected’ it to ‘thy land’. The translators’ original reasons for the non-literal translation had ceased to be apparent to their successors. We may guess at the original reasons – the translators may have considered ‘thy’ redundant in context and justified the decision from the Vulgate, which also omits the possessive (‘da pluviam terrae, quam dedisti populo tuo ad possidendum’) – but the crucial point is that Bod 1602 shows that the translators deliberately rejected the reading the later editors recreated. There are at least twenty-four instances of this sort where later editions have restored a Bishops’ Bible reading that the translators rejected, and a further eleven that involve the spelling of names. ‘Prepared Millo’ is the only one where the translators’ understanding of the text is lost. All the others are either neutral as far as the reading of the original is concerned or involve some degree of apparent deviation from literal translation. I list them here arranged by date of restoration; in each case the 1602 and modern KJB readings represent the original literally: Ref. 1602 and modern KJBs 1611 Date restored 2 Chr. 32:5 repaired Millo prepared Millo 1616 Amos 1:1 two years two yere 1616 Mal. 4:2 and ye shall go forth and shall goe foorth 1617 Deut. 20:7 lest he die in the battle lest he die in battell 1629 Deut. 26:1 the Lord thy God the Lord 1629 1 Sam. 28:7 And his servants said And his seruant said 1629 1 Chr. 3:19 and the sons of Zerubbabel And the sonne of Zerubbabel 1629 1 Chr. 11:15 to the rock to David to the rocke of Dauid 1629 Esther 1:8 for so the king had appointed for the king had appointed 1629 Ps. 113:9 and to be a joyful mother to be a ioyfull mother 1629 42 A Textual History of the King James Bible Ref. 1602 and modern KJBs 1611 Date restored Song 4:6 to the mountain of myrrh to the mountaines of myrrhe 1629 Dan. 3:18 the golden image thy golden image 1629 Joel 3:13 their wickedness the wickednesse 1629 Num. 6:14 and one ram and one lambe 1638 Josh. 3:15 all the time at the time 1638 2 Kgs 20:13 shewed them all the house shewed them the house 1638 1 Chr. 7:5 valiant men of might [1602: warre] men of might 1638 2 Chr. 6:27 thy land the land 1638 Ps. 105:30 Their land The land 1638 Eccles. 1:5 his place the place 1638 Ezek. 3:11 the children of thy people thy people 1638 Amos 8:3 the songs of the temple the songs of the Temples 1638 1 Chr. 7:35 And the sons And the sonne 1701 Ezek. 1:17 turned returned 1769 These are the elevennames, givenintheir 1611 spelling, which were restored to their 1602 spelling by later editions: Caldees (Gen. 15:7 etc.), Maarah (Josh. 15:59), Shahazimath (Josh. 19:22), Baalah (Josh. 19:44), Zoar (1 Chr. 4:7), Gidor (1 Chr. 8:31), Elpalet (1 Chr. 14:7), Nephushim (Ezra 2:50), Michmash (Neh. 7:31), Hodiah (Neh. 10:18), Siloe (Luke 13:4; here the translators made and then rejected a later change). Explanations of the sort just given are of course speculative; to some extent, they are also beside the point, for we do not have to understand the translators’ motive and meaning when faced with clear evidence of their deliberate decisions. At the other end of the scale from ‘prepared Millo’ is ‘the Lord’ at Deut. 26:1. The Hebrewis ¸Vn2 ¬™¬π, ‘the Lord thy God’, as the Bishops’ Bible and modern KJBs have it. Without the evidence of Bod 1602, 1611’s omission of ‘thy God’ would appear to be a simple omission by the printer. But the translators struck through ‘thy God’. If this ‘blunder’ was a deliberate action, its rationale is unrecoverable. Nevertheless, we cannot presume that there was no rationale, and therefore should not presume to correct the translators. Four of the twenty-four restorations of rejected readings are matters of English that appear not to involve how the original is understood. The translators deleted ‘and’ from‘he maketh the barren woman to keepe house, and to be a ioyful mother of children’ (Ps. 113:9); it was restored in 1629. They changed ‘turned’ to ‘returned’ in ‘they turned not when they went’ (Ezek. 1:17; restored 1769), ‘two years’ to ‘two year’ (Amos 1:1; restored Pre-1611 evidence for the text 43 1616), and they deleted ‘ye’ from‘and ye shall goe foorth’ (Mal. 4:2; restored 1617). The rest all involve some degree of perceived inaccuracy in that each departs froma literal reading of the text. I guess that the translators’ motives must have been stylistic since the Hebrew involved is not difficult and they already had the ‘right’ answer in front of them. Two more things are worth noting here. First, save for ‘Siloe’ at Luke 13:4, the examples all come from the OT and, being spread through it, seem to have no special connection with the work of a particular company of translators. Second, all bar two were restored to their original readings by 1638, that is, within a time-frame in which the Bishops’ Bible readings could have influenced the decisions. This is not enough to show that the various editors, scholars and printers involved in the work through to 1638 tested the KJB by the Bishops’ Bible and consequently restored a few of the latter’s readings, but some such testing is not impossible. Of all the changes, perhaps only ‘repaired’ for ‘prepared’ argues with any strength for the influence of the Bishops’ Bible: all the others are logical responses to the original. One or two of these examples may show slips of the scribal pen influencing the text of the KJB, but overall they testify to the importance of the annota- tions in Bod 1602 as evidence for the text, and they enforce a greater respect for the detail of the first printed text than editors have hitherto granted it. But we should be wary of going too far, either making Bod 1602 into the final arbiter on the text wherever it affords evidence, or ascribing infallibil- ity to the first edition. Half a dozen counter-examples stand against those just examined. In these Bod 1602 shows the translators creating readings eventually brought in by a later editor but not found in the 1611 text. At Lev. 11:3, the translators changed ‘chaweth cud’ to ‘cheweth the cud’, but the first edition has ‘cheweth cud’; ‘cheweth the cud’ first appeared in 1629. What one will never know here is whether the printer overlooked ‘the’ or whether there was a decision subsequent to the annotation in Bod 1602 to omit the article because it is also missing from the Hebrew (in contrast to the next verse, where the Hebrew has the article, it is again inserted by the Bod 1602 scribe, and it does appear in the first edition). The same problem – was a decision revoked or accidentally ignored? – is present in all six examples. Since in each case both readings are possible, the question becomes this: does one trust the first edition against manuscript evidence and the decision of later editors? The answer must be that one does because to do otherwise would be unacceptably problematic in that it would open up the possibility of revising the text solely on the basis of Bod 1602. One example enforces this conclusion, ‘a silver bowl’ (1602 and 1611) or ‘one silver bowl’ (Bod 1602 annotation and 1638; Num. 7:61). Here we could reinforce the evidence of the Bod 1602 annotation by observing that 44 A Textual History of the King James Bible twice elsewhere in this chapter Bod 1602’s ‘a’ for ¬k0 is deleted and ‘one’ substituted, and that this change remains in the printed text (vv. 31, 55). It is, then, very possible that 1611’s ‘a’ is a copying or printing error. But the real difficulty comes in v. 43, where the identical change is recorded in Bod 1602 but 1611 has ‘a’, and this has never been altered. The 1638 edition appears to have been remiss in not changing this also. There are two points here. First, it is unlikely that the same error of transmission should be made twice, in which case the 1611 reading appears to be deliberate. Second, if v. 43 were to be changed, as consistency would seem to demand, a new area of revision would be opened up, namely the possibility of revision at every point where the evidence in Bod 1602 gives a different reading from the first edition. Changes might therefore be made not only where later editors had collectively agreed that the 1611 reading was satisfactory, but where the translators themselves had made decisions subsequent to those recorded in Bod 1602. In short, the principle I go on is this: variant readings in the printing history alone are allowed to raise questions about the text. Bod 1602 may provide the most important evidence for deciding a reading but I do not allow it to raise questions as to readings. Bod 1602’s silences are also evidence for the text, but they are less certain. The absence of annotation may well imply an invisible ‘stet’ against the text, but this is not always so. There are at least twenty-nine instances of changes being made in the printed text where no changes are noted in Bod 1602. 12 Over half of them are a matter of a single letter, most commonly a variation between a singular or a plural. The three most significant examples come from the NT. The lack of annotation to ‘and awoke him, saying’ (Matt. 8:25) confirms what is also obvious from the immediate correction in other editions, that the first edition’s ‘and awoke, saying’ is a printer’s error. On the other hand, ‘he came’ in ‘but when hee sawJesus afarre off, he came and worshipped him’ (Mark 5:6) is probably a deliberate late change from ‘he ranne’, which is unannotated in Bod 1602, and was restored in 1638. ‘Strain at a gnat’ (Matt. 23:24) falls somewhere between these two examples: it is often argued to be a printer’s error, yet has generally been allowed to stand. ‘Straine out a gnat’ is left unrevised in Bod 1602, suggesting but not proving that the translators decided to leave it unchanged. However, corroboratory evidence such as the immediate change to ‘awoke, saying’, is missing: if ‘strain at’ was a mistake, this was not obvious, and it survived the scrutiny of all editors and printers until 1754, and most of them since then. It is always 12 Gen. 8:13; 9:18; 26:1, 8, 18; 31:30; Exod. 29:26; Lev. 17:14; Num. 1:47; 24:6; 1 Kgs 3:4, 12; 13:11; 15:29; 2 Kgs 8:19; 20:17; 23:36; 2 Chr. 26:18; 32:20; Ezra 4:24; Job 41:6; Ps. 107:43; Prov. 20:14; Amos 9:5; Micah 7:7; Nahum 3:16; Matt. 8:25; 23:24; Mark 5:6; 11:8; 15:34; Luke 8:5, 8. Pre-1611 evidence for the text 45 helpful – but not essential – to find an explanation for a suspect reading. The OED gives a good one: to strain at: to make a difficulty of ‘swallowing’ or accepting (something) . . . This use is due to a misunderstanding of the phrase ‘strain at a gnat’ in Matt. xxiii. 24. It has been asserted that ‘straine at’ in the Bible of 1611 is a misprint for ‘straine out’ . . . But quots. 1583 and 1594 show that the translators of 1611 simply adopted a rendering that had already obtained currency. It was not a mistranslation, the meaning intended being ‘which strain the liquor if they find a gnat in it’. The phrase, however, was early misapprehended (perh. already by Shaks. inquot. 1609), the verb being supposed to mean ‘to make violent effort’. In short, ‘strain at’ probably was deliberate. One might be ingenious and argue that the OED’s earlier quotations and the 1611 rendering all represent a popular misunderstanding of the biblical phrase, but in editorial matters such as this, where the best possible approach to certainty is needed for a change to be made to the first edition, ingenuity can only be used on behalf of the first edition’s readings, not against them. 3 The first edition A ‘Bible of the largest and greatest volume’ The printing history of the KJB is plagued throughout by inadequate pub- lishing records. Presumably because it was considered a revision rather than a new book, the first edition was not entered on the Stationers’ Registers, so we do not know when in 1611 it appeared. Though commonly known as the Authorised Version (AV), it appears not to have been officially authorised. Aroyal proclamation of 1541 had ordered a ‘Byble of the largest and greatest volume, to be had in euery churche’. 1 First the Great Bibles then the Bishops’ Bibles had supplied this need. The first edition of the KJB was also a Bible ‘of the largest and greatest volume’, and so replenished the supply of church Bibles. The finely engraved title page, by Cornelis Boel, reads: The Holy Bible, Conteyning the Old Testament, and the new: Newly Translated out of the Originall tongues: & with the former Translations diligently compared and reuised: by his Maiesties speciall Comandement. Appointed to be read in Churches. Imprinted at London by Robert Barker. Printer to the Kings most excellent Maiestie. Anno Dom. 1611. The use of ‘appointed’ and the absence of ‘authorised’ are striking – the more striking in that the Bishops’ Bible after 1585 had been ‘authorised and appointed to be read in Churches’ (H188). Moreover, there is no official record of authorisation (for these reasons I prefer to call this Bible the King James Bible). When after 1611 church officials, in keeping with the 1541 injunction, needed a new church Bible, they generally specified either ‘a Bible of the latest edition’ or ‘of the last translation’, or they used the injunction’s phrase ‘a bible of the largest volume’. 2 The designation (or, perhaps, nickname) ‘authorised’ crept in. In 1619 Archbishop Abbott, who had been one of the translators, describes the KJB as ‘the Bible of the New 1 As given in Pollard, p. 112. 2 R. T. Davidson, ‘The Authorisation of the English Bible’, Macmillan’s Magazine, June 1881, as given in Pollard, p. 34. The first edition 47 Translation, lately set forth by His Majesty’s authority’, and in1620 Ambrose Ussher describes it as ‘the authorised bible’. 3 Inrelationto the first editionand the largest folios fromthe King’s Printer that succeeded it, Pollard’s views have stood the test of time. He notes that the word ‘Appointed’, is considerably weaker than the ‘Authorised and Appointed’ which it replaced. By itself ‘Appointed’ means little more than ‘assigned’ or ‘pro- vided’, and the words ‘Appointed to be read in Churches’ literally expressed the facts that this Bible was printed by the King’s printer withthe approval of the King and the Bishops for use in churches, and that no competing edition ‘of the largest volume’ was allowed to be published. (Pollard, p. 32) Consequently, churches were not expected to discard their Bishops’ (or Great) Bibles overnight. This would have been especially burdensome to poor parishes and a slur on the Bishops’ Bible. So, in the absence of com- pulsion, new folio KJBs were purchased when wanted or needed. The dates of the largest folios from the King’s Printer tell a straightforward story here: 1611, 1613/1611, 1617, 1634 and 1640. There was extra demand for church Bibles produced by the appearance of a new translation, and this demand was more than satisfied within six years, a further reprint being unnecessary for fourteen years. Like its predecessors, the Great and the Bishops’ Bibles, the first edition was printed in black letter, a type-face created in imitation of gothic script but now carrying with it a sense of stately ornateness by contrast with the modern clarity introduced by the Geneva Bible’s use of roman type. Size, quality of paper and the black letter type were the three characteristics promoting a sense of ecclesiastical splendour in the first edition. Otherwise, throughout the text (some of the preliminary matter is ornate) it was plain and formal – workmanlike – compared with most of its predecessors. A specimen page Since aspects of the typography can affect the text, it will be useful to examine a specimen page giving most of Genesis 16 and half of chapter 17 (plate 2). The text is presented within ruled borders with space delineated 3 Davidson, as given in Pollard, p. 34; Ussher, p. 589. Of interest, but obviously unreliable, is the following from a manuscript account of the history of the Bible apparently written towards the end of the seventeenth century: this great undertaking being managed with all due care was finished in 3. Years dedicated to K. James and published 1610, and is y e Last English Translation of this Divine book and is called Kg James Bible – after this was published the use of y e Others drop’t off by degree’s and this took place tho there was neither Canon Proclamation or Act of Parliam t to enforce y e use of it. (British Library MS Lansdowne 351, fol. 44v) 48 A Textual History of the King James Bible Plate 2. First edition KJB, Genesis 16–17. The first edition 49 for headers and for annotations. A series of typographical steps would have beennecessary to create sucha page. Eachruled area was set separately. First, the two columns of text were set, then, spaced out as necessary with wooden blocks, the marginal notes and references were added, and also the headers. The separation of these steps may occasionally have contributed to errors such as the misplacement or omission of notes and references. Recto pages (as in plate 2) have the chapter number in the middle of the header (except in the Psalms), while the verso pages have the name of the book. Usually but not always the chapter number is the number of the chapter beginning on the page. The margin is used for three kinds of annotation. There are literal translations designated with a †, alternative English renderings with double vertical lines, and cross references with an asterisk. At the beginning of the chapter there is a summary of its contents. The catchword at the bottom of the right-hand column has a line to itself (something the printer could vary according to the demands of space). The first letter or initial of the chapter is characteristic in that it is five lines deep and has no border. The second letter of the first word is always printed as a capital. Thereareseveral points tonoteabout thetext. Perhaps themost important feature is the presentation of words that now appear in italics. At 16:6 ‘is’ is given in small roman type: visually it appears de-emphasised – exactly the opposite to the effect of italics used for such words in roman type and all modern editions. 4 And the diminished emphasis is the point: the small roman type represents words that have no equivalent in the original text. Now, ‘is’ at 16:6 is the only example of small roman type here, but the page has other such added words: modern editions recognise this by adding a further seven uses of italics, all involving the verb ‘to be’. The identification of addedwords is inconsistent andincomplete in1611. Sois the presentation: the Apocrypha, which rarely notes such words, uses square brackets without variationof type (thoughthe first suchword, ‘watch’ at 1 Esdras 4:11 is given in round brackets). Paragraphs are denoted with paragraph marks following verse numbers (16:4 etc.). One of the curiosities of the KJB is that there are no paragraph marks after Acts 20, only one in Psalms, and six in the whole of the Apoc- rypha. 5 Like the identification of added words, this bespeaks incomplete work. One other feature of the page has similar implications: the holy name 4 As roman type is the font used for distinguishing text from the surrounding black letter type, so italic is used in relation to roman. The practice of setting translators’ additions in a different type was introduced in the 1557 Geneva NT. This was set in roman with italic for the additions. 5 Ps. 92:8 (superscriptions to the Psalms have paragraph marks; the sections of Ps. 119 begin with a three-line drop capital); 1 Esdras 2:8; 3:13; 4:13; 8:25; 2 Esdras 6:11; 1 Macc. 6:48. 50 A Textual History of the King James Bible is given in capitals; this continues throughout Genesis, but thereafter small capitals are used, ‘Lord’. Either the decision to use this formwas taken after the printing had begun or the error was noticed late. The former is more likely. There are several instances through the printing history of the KJB where it is clear that a decision was made after one or more relevant exam- ples had passed, and no backward correction was made, no matter howeasy such correction might seem. For instance, in the first edition, ‘Olofernes’ is changed to ‘Holofernes’ from Judith 3:5 onwards, even though ‘Olofernes’ comes twice on the same page as ‘Holofernes’. There are what appear to be printer’s errors – ‘appear to be’ because there are two areas of doubt: first, the error may come from the copy the printer worked from, in which case it is not his error; second, it may not actually be an error. In 17:4 there is an asterisk before ‘father’ but no cross reference in the margin; in the next line of the verse there is a double vertical line where there should be a † as in the margin. The latter is a printer’s error, but it is possible that the asterisk before ‘father’ without a corresponding reference could reflect a problem in the copy; either way one might suspect that the repetition of ‘a father of many nations’ in the next verse could have caused the problem. In the chapter summary, ‘Izsaac’ appears to be a printer’s error, as does ‘soieurnings’ in the margin to 17:8. It is just possible that these are acceptable variant spellings. For the most part the black letter type used for the text is clean-cut and, once one is used to it, quite readable. But it has some characteristics that can lead to problems. Because it is so strongly based on thick vertical lines with diagonal connecting lines and serifs, some letters can be confused if the type is at all misformed, worn or broken, notably n, u and m. The ns of ‘Egyptian’ (16:3) and of ‘in’ (16:6, second line) show how the connecting stroke can disappear, making the distinction from u unclear. The ms show a tendency for the right side of the letter to separate, making the letter appear ni (compare ‘Abrams’ in 16:3 with the other ms in the verse), or even, under the pressure of printing, to move, apparently giving ‘Abrant’ in 17:1. Long s and f, such a problemto modernreaders, may also have beena problemeven to those thoroughly used to the typeface. This is the likeliest explanation for the variation between ‘flay’ and ‘slay’ at Lev. 1:6 and 2 Chr. 29:34, a variation betweenthe first twoeditions that probably goes backtothe indistinct nature of the f of ‘flay’ in the 1602 text (in which case it is evidence that the second edition was set with an annotated Bishops’ Bible as one of its sources). One of the most obvious characteristics of the page is the antiquated spelling, most of whichhas disappearedfrommodernversions. For instance, many of the words have a terminal e (‘obtaine’ and ‘bee’ in the first line and its margin etc.), but this is not consistently used, as 16:5 shows: ‘when shee sawthat she hadconceiued’. Amore substantial variationis visible in16:8and the chapter summary: the possessive is first modern (save that apostrophes The first edition 51 were yet to be used) then antiquated, ‘Sarais maid’ and ‘Sara her name’. Spelling was much more fluid in 1611 than we allow: it was quite acceptable for a word to be given in several different forms. One last thing about this page: at 16:6 it has a different reading from the second edition, ‘but Abram’ where the second edition reads ‘and Abram’. ‘But’ was the 1602 reading and remains the modern reading; however, Bod 1602 shows that the translators struck through ‘but’ and substituted ‘and’. Closely examined, this sample page does more than demonstrate the appearance and particularities of the 1611 text: it shows some of the char- acteristic problems the text presents to editors – spelling, errors and variant readings. Some of these problems make one question the reliability of the text as an exact representation of the intentions of the translators. It may not have preserved their decision at 16:6, and it has muddled their work in some way at 17:4. Initials and space Some aspects of typography showup whena longer viewis taken. One of the distinctive and ornamental features of the text that was very much under the printer’s control was the use of initials. Large initials nine lines deep are normally found at the beginnings of books; by contrast with the initials for chapters, these generally have a double border. Some of the books are given smaller initials for reasons of space (Obadiah, possibly Micah where a nine-line initial might have caused problems at the end of the page, 2 Esdras and 2 and 3 John, where sufficient space is created by the use of the small initials so that 3 John can start on the same page as 2 John). Others have smaller initials without the need for space-saving (Lamentations, Wisdom, Susannah, Bel and2 Maccabees). If this is not just whimonthe printer’s part, it may reflect some sense of the relative insignificance of these books. The remaining two smaller initials come at the beginnings of Luke and John and represent the evangelists. Here purpose-made initials are used even though they are the wrong size. The printer evidently liked the Luke initial enough to use it again at 1 Thessalonians 2 (see plate 3). Curiously and inappropriately, a few of the initials have mythological scenes. Pan figures in the seven-line capital used for Wisdom (also used at Psalm 141 and 1 Peter 3). Neptune with sea horses begins both Matthew and Revelation, and Romans begins with a naked, sprouting Daphne. There is also a female figure, apparently with an asp or serpent, in the initial to 1 Thessalonians. The O beginning Hebrews has a face in it (as does the O at Isaiah 64). It seems improbable that the translators would have asked the printer to use these initials and unlikely that they would have approved their use. A degree of unsupervised freedom on the part of the printer is implicit. Plate 3. Five unusual initials from the first edition of the King James Bible. From top left: seven-line figure of Pan, used at Psalm 141, Wisdom 1 and 1 Peter 3; ten-line Neptune and sea horses, Matthew 1 and Revelation 1; seven-line Luke, Luke 1 and 1 Thessalonians 2; ten-line Daphne, Romans 1; ten-line initial with face, Hebrews 1. The first edition 53 The initials at the beginnings of chapters also hint at a story. For 336 chapters nothing interferes with the uniform use of five-line unframed cap- itals with some kind of foliate design; then at 1 Chronicles 12 a six-line double-framed N appears. It is as if a discipline has been broken. The great- est variety is to be found in the Psalms: Psalms 6–8, for example, have successively a standard O, a four-line O given a five-line space and a six-line double-bordered O. Unless the printer was short of initial Os (quite a few are needed in the Psalms), this is variety for its own sake, perhaps even mere licence. At times the discipline is resumed, most notably in the 122 chapters from Ecclesiasticus 39 to John 9. The majority of the variations are larger initials (very fewof which corre- spond to the demands of space) and initials with borders. There are thirty- eight four-line initials, some dictated by lack of space, some apparently not; a dozen of them are set against five lines of text. The first comes at 1 Chron- icles 18 where there is only room for four lines of text at the bottom of the column. What is remarkable is that for 342 chapters such an expedient had beenunnecessary. Withfifty-nine lines toa columnone wouldhave expected five or six chapters would have begun four lines from the bottom by now, and that twenty-three chapters would have begun somewhere in the bottom four lines. Now, chapters never begin with three or fewer lines left, and yet there is never space left at the bottom of a column except occasionally at the end of a book. The printer was highly skilled at adjusting the layout of the text to fit the page. Usually the exercise of this skill is invisible, but in the last twelve pages of the Apocrypha, that is, in the last quire, the effort to cram text into a small space is obvious. The printer stopped the Apocrypha from running over the end of the quire, so ensuring that the NT could be printed sepa- rately fromthe OTand Apocrypha without waste of space or paper (no such provision is made for printing the OT separately from the Apocrypha). He used abbreviated forms much more than elsewhere, occasionally omitted punctuation at the end of a verse, and added an extra line at the foot of some of the columns. Here if anywhere the possibility that the printer changed the text for his own purposes might be tested: are there signs of compression in the language as well as in the typesetting? There are indeed five verses that are telegrammatic, 2 Macc. 13:22–26; they are striking both by contrast with the surrounding language and in comparison with the earlier versions. Verse 26, for example, reads, ‘Lysias went vp to the iudgement seat, said as much as could be in defence of the cause, perswaded, pacified, made them well affected, returned to Antioch. Thus it went touching the kings com- ming and departing.’ This revises Geneva’s ‘then went Lysias vp into the iudgement seat, and excused the facte as well as he could, and perswaded them, and pacified them, and made them well affectioned, & came againe vnto Antiocha. This is the matter concerning the Kings iourney, and his 54 A Textual History of the King James Bible returne.’ Geneva is longer by forty-four characters and spaces. However, two things suggest the KJB’s compression is not a question of space. The printer had room for another twenty-seven characters before he needed to add another line. Second, the accumulation of verbs without conjunctions exactly follows the Greek (it is a device quite commonly found in campaign narratives; the most famous example is Caesar’s ‘veni, vidi, vici’). The prob- ability therefore is that the compression of vv. 22–26 is a deliberately literal following of the original – at the expense of more fluent English and in spite of the example of the earlier translations. If this, the most blatant example of compression, does not show (it cannot absolutely disprove) the printer interfering with the text, we must set him down as a faithful worker. If he strayed from the translators’ copy, the straying was accidental. Typographical errors Obvious errors (typographical or printer’s errors) show that the page does not perfectly represent the translators’ work: it is a product of humanfallibil- ity and needs correction. Moreover, the presence of obvious errors suggests that there may be hidden errors, as ‘but Abram’ appears to be. This, simple as it is, may be as much as we can legitimately conclude from the obvious errors, but there is perhaps a little more than curiosity value in examining them further. Up to this point it has been possible to refer to the printer as if he were a single person. But, in looking at whatever the errors in the text might tell of how well the work was rendered into print, we have to look at several functions in the printer’s house, functions probably undertaken by several people at once since different parts may have been set simultaneously and several presses employed. The three most important here are those of the compositor, the proof-reader and the distributor of the type, presumably an apprentice. Compositors take type, a character at a time, from a case, a two-part box with compartments for each character. Printers did not have enough type to set the whole of the Bible at once, so parts had to be set and printed, then the type distributed to the case so that fresh text can be set. The apprentice distributing the type might mis-identify a character and so place it in the wrong compartment, or he might simply misplace a character. Consequently a compositor could reach into the correct compartment and pull out an incorrect character. Such errors do not reflect on the accuracy of the compositor: it is as if there were a glitch in the programming of one’s keyboard so that once in a while when, say, the u key is struck, an n results. Not all typographical errors, therefore, represent errors by the man with the first responsibility for rendering the text intoprint, the compositor. After the compositor, the proof-reader has prime responsibility for seeing that the The first edition 55 text is as it should be. 6 We can never tell how badly the compositor worked because the proof-reader removed an unknown number of his mistakes. For the same reason, we can never tell how well the proof-reader worked: we cannot see what he did, only what he failed to do. Because of the divided responsibility for errors, because they tell only part of the story of the accuracy of the work, and because there is also fal- libility in the present identification of them, one should not depend much on generalisations from errors. But, with this caveat, some observations may be made from the list in appendix 1. I count 351 errors (247 in the text, 104 in the margins etc.), that is, not much more than one in every three and a half chapters. This, surely, is a remarkably low number. The commonest error is u for n (61), followed by n for u (20), c for t (9) and e for t (4). The commonest incorrect word is ‘aud’ (28). 7 The confusion of u and n is probably an error of distribution not of setting, which comes from the great similarity of the characters. 8 Its frequency as well as some of the particular examples suggest this; for instance, ‘soune’ for ‘sonne’ at Num. 10:24: the compositor is unlikely to have taken type from two dif- ferent places for consecutive identical letters, so the u must have been with the ns. The other side of this argument holds with ‘bonnd’ for ‘bound’ 6 ‘Proof-reader’ is used loosely here for ease of expression. The concept is anachronistic, as Johnson’s definition of ‘proof’ reminds us: ‘in printing, the rough draft of a sheet when first pulled’ – not, that is, a completely set work that could be sent to the author while the type was kept standing. Some degree of checking there was, usually of freshly pulled sheets, andalmost always inthe printinghouse. Suchcheckingincreasinglyinvolvedauthors, as Simpson was at pains to show (ch. 1), who were, of course, concerned to be properly represented. Nevertheless, whenleft solely tothe printer andhis men, as somuchof the work on the innumerable editions of the KJB was, proof-reading may not have been primarily concerned with textual accuracy: ‘printed copy would not necessarily be checked against manuscript but rather inspected for broken types, faulty lineation and other technical and esthetic matters, not textual accuracy’ (Greetham, p. 118). For an example of this kind of checking of the Bible, see the description of the eighteenth-century Oxford corrector, Denison, below, p. 101. 7 The Chadwyck-Healey English Bible CD-Rom, which is particularly prone to error where typographical peculiarities are concerned, shows only 17. It confirms the commonness of ‘aud’ in the earlier printed Bibles, yielding a further 130 hits: Tyndale 11, Coverdale 11, Matthew Bible 54, Great Bible 14, Geneva 9, Bishops’ 12 and Rheims-Douai 19. 8 The confusion is unlikely to be caused by inverting the character because each character had a nick showing the compositor which way it was to be held. There are only two instances of inverted characters, at Num. 29:1m and Ezek. 40:6m. A speculation arises here. If the type was newly cast, as Pollard suggests (p. 32), con- fusion of u and n would begin once the printer began to re-use type, and so would indicate how much of the text was set at a time and how much of this black letter type Barker had. The first instance comes at Gen. 28:22, on fol. C3 v , that is, on the thirty- first page. The inference is that no more than thirty pages were set before the type was distributed. The number of characters in these pages is slightly over 70,000 (text only, not counting spaces and punctuation); the commonest characters are e (8,865), a (6,562), t (6,386), h (5,994) and n (5,220). 56 A Textual History of the King James Bible (Jer. 30:13) and ‘nnm’ for ‘num’ (Ps. 103:8 m.): it is unlikely that the com- positor would have reached into the same part of the case for two different letters; in both instances he picked a misdistributed n from the u compart- ment. Consequently 351 overstates the number of surviving typographical errors that are the fault of the compositor. This is important, because it is his (or, rather, their) accuracy that is of prime importance in establishing the text. If about 250 typographical errors are to be attributed (in the first place) to the compositor, that is certainly a low enough number to encourage a respect for the text’s standard of accuracy. On the other hand, 351 errors, some of them blatant, suggest that stan- dards of proof-reading were not particularly high. This is not a matter of attributing more errors to the proof-reader than the compositor; rather, it reflects the degree to which each task is prone to error. Proof-readers should be able to spot almost all typographical errors, but it would be unreal to expect anything less than a sprinkling of errors from compositors. I am inclined to think therefore that the compositor of the first edition did a good job and is, for the most part, to be trusted, but that ordinary proof- reading was not as thorough as it should have been. If proof-reading was skimped, it is unlikely that a special effort was made to read the compositor’s work against the translators’ copy. One further thing relates to this supposition: the first edition is almost entirelyhomogeneous, but there at least eight variations tobe foundbetween copies. All but one reflect work done after printing had begun rather than as part of the regular process of composition, proof-reading and correction. The exception is ‘40’ for ‘46’ (1 Macc. 13 summary), where I think it likely that the up-stroke of ‘6’ has broken off; what is left of the character happens to be identical in size to a zero. Three of the variations show typographical errors beingcorrected(amisplacedannotationat Joel 3:14, ‘seters’ at 1Esdras 5:58, and ‘Tyranuus’ at 2 Macc. 4:40 m.), 9 and are useful in indicating that the printer was willing to correct such errors when they were noticed. More interesting are the three or four changes of reading (‘them’ to ‘him’ (Exod. 21:26), ‘she’ to‘he’ (Song 2:7), 10 and‘by their knowledge of’ inserted(Ecclus. 44:4)). The possible fourth is ‘Abigal’/‘Abigail’ (2 Sam. 17:25); if the change was to ‘Abigail’, it is an erroneous regularisation of spelling, but if it was to ‘Abigal’ it was scholarly in the light of the Hebrew. These changes appear to come from scholarly observation of the text as it is being printed. There is no telling whether such observation was thorough or random, but the survival of blatant errors suggests it was the latter. 9 Wright, who notes all but the variation at Joel 3:14, suggests that ‘probably many other changes might be discovered’ (I, p. v). Only a full collation of extant copies would tell, but I suspect he overstates. 10 It is possible that the change was ‘he’ to ‘she’ since the Hebrew is feminine. The first edition 57 All one can reasonably conclude is that the common-sense view is right: the first edition is to be treated with critical respect – respect, because it is made directly from the translators’ own work and, probably, with their collaboration, and because it is well done; critical, because it is not perfectly done and may not have been checked against the manuscript. ‘Hidden’ errors By ‘hidden’ errors, I mean those that might well have been invisible to a proof-reader because the printed text appears to make sense. There are vari- ous sources of these errors. The received text may be uncertain or corrupted in some way, earlier translations may have made a mistake that is acciden- tally retained, the translators themselves may have erred, they may not have written down what they meant to write, their draft may have been incor- rectly copied in making the master copy, and the printer may have gone wrong in ways that are hidden. Here we enter difficult territory because there is usually a degree of doubt as to whether these really are errors. The range is from near-certainty to the faintest suspicion, so there is not always a correct answer as to what the text should be. I want now to discuss some representative examples of each kind of possible error. As examples of problems arisingfromtheoriginals, threesimilar problems of gender are illuminating. I have already noted the omission of a marginal alternative at Ruth 3:15, where the first edition reads, ‘he went into the citie’. This follows the received Hebrew text, but the problem is that the context seems to demand that it is Ruth, not Boaz, who went. Many manuscripts and various translations including the Geneva and the Bishops’ Bibles make the verb feminine. Bod 1602 shows that the translators originally left ‘she’ unchanged, and the second edition, followed by most subsequent editions, has ‘she went’. Moreover, only if the translators had followed the practice recorded in the report to the Synod of Dort of noting alternative readings in the margin could one have been certain that ‘he went’ was deliberate. There is, then, a good case that ‘he went’ is an error. Two points go against this. First, the reading is true to the Hebrew; second, ‘he went’ is a hard reading and therefore difficult to take as a copying or printing error. In this case, I think one must trust the first edition: the original may be wrong, but the translators appear to have followed it deliberately. The gender of a Hebrew verb also causes problems in the final verses of Job 39 and in Song 2:7. In the latter the context seems to demand a mas- culine verb: although one might take the verse as an interpolation by the man, the woman appears to be speaking, as in the surrounding verses, giving a command about her lover: ‘I charge you, O ye daughters of 58 A Textual History of the King James Bible Ierusalem . . . that ye stirre not vp, nor awake my loue, till he please’. The Hebrew has a feminine verb, ‘till she please’, and various translations, including the Vulgate, Geneva and the Bishops’ Bible have followed this. The Bishops’ Bible reads, ‘nor touch her, till she be content her selfe’. Now, there appears to be no doubt that the KJB translators decided to treat the Hebrew as an error: they struck through all but ‘nor’ and ‘be’, and substi- tuted ‘awake my loue till he please’, which is the rendering I quoted above. However, some copies of the first edition read ‘till she please’. Because we do not know whether ‘he’ was corrected to ‘she’ or the other way round, we do not know whether the translators changed their mind and decided to be literal in spite of the context, or whether the printer, misled by the Bishops’ Bible feminine reading because he was working froman annotated text like Bod 1602, incorrectly printed ‘she’. So, ‘until she please’ could have been the translators’ final decision, but the presence of ‘till he please’ in the majority of copies and in the second and subsequent editions means that one must take this as the intended reading. In short, the translators decided the Hebrew text was wrong, and the source of the variation in some copies may go back to the nature of the copy the printer worked from. The third example of this sort concerns the eagle at the end of Job 39. In the Hebrew it is consistently masculine, but the KJB makes it feminine except in v. 30, which reads, ‘her yong ones also suck up blood: and where the slaine are, there is he’. This appears to be a muddle, possibly going back to incomplete alterationof the Bishops’ Bible, whichmakes the eagle masculine throughout. The translators made no change to ‘there is he’ in Bod 1602. The change to ‘there is she’ was first made in 1616 and then confirmed by the Cambridge edition of 1629. Scrivener’s judgement on this seems exactly right: ‘the “eagle” should have been masculine throughout vers. 27–30, but after having regarded it as feminine thus far, it is too late to change here’ (p. 165 n.). The use of the masculine cannot be justified by reference to the Hebrew without impeaching the use of the feminine up to this point. The 1611 reading is an error, ultimately going back to the nature of the original (although that does not have an error here), but apparently having an immediate cause in imperfectly carrying out the decision to change the eagle’s gender. Two of the examples just discussed may well involve aninfluence fromthe Bishops’ Bible. I have already noted one example of a Bishops’ Bible mistake creeping apparently unnoticed into the KJB text, ‘man of actiuitie’ at Gen. 47:6 (see above, p. 36). Another reading that appears to be a printer’s error in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible is ‘vpon earth’ instead of ‘upon the earth’ in the phrase, ‘since the day that God created man vpon earth’ (Deut. 4:32). The Hebrew has the definite article and other editions of the Bishops’ Bible (as also the Geneva Bible) have ‘upon the earth’. No correction was noted in Bod 1602, but the article reappears in the KJB in the 1612 quartos. A more The first edition 59 blatant error from the 1602 text is ‘the Lord your God’ (1 Kgs 8:61). The Hebrew, correctly followed by the original Bishops’ Bible and brought back into the KJB in 1629, means ‘the Lord our God’. Again the translators failed to correct Bod 1602. This kind of error may come from moments of inattention by the trans- lators or from failure to mark intended corrections, in which case it relates to the next group, errors that come from the Bod 1602 scribes. At Exod. 35:11 the translators revised ‘and his rings, his boords, his bars’ towards Geneva’s ‘and his taches & his boards, his barres’, but the scribe omitted ‘and his boards’. The omission was rectified by the second Cambridge edi- tion (1638). At Eccles. 8:17 there is a reading that seems to make sense: ‘because though a man labour to seeke it out, yea further though a wise man thinke to know it, yet shall hee not be able to finde it’. However, a phrase fromthe Hebrewis missing after ‘to seeke it out’, and it was supplied in 1629, ‘yet he shall not find it’. The omission goes directly back to the Bod 1602 scribe. Just possibly he struck through more of the text than he meant to, but the likelihood is that he failed to write in a revision, for the Bishops’ Bible phrase – ‘yet he cannot reachvntothem’ – does needrevision. The Hebrewis x≤uª4¬ : there is nothing to justify ‘cannot’, and ‘cannot reach unto’ is vague and awkward. The verse ends, 4sup¬d 4¬: the KJB has added ‘yet’ and ‘it’ to fill out the sense of a literal rendering, ‘yet he shall not be able to find it’. 1629’s insertionis exactly inkeeping withthis andis inall probability exactly what the translators intended to write. A similar incomplete correction also produces sense at Dan. 1:12. ‘Vs haue’ is struck through in Bod 1602’s ‘let vs haue pulse’, and ‘them giue’ is inserted. Here too it was the 1629 edition that noticed that something from the Hebrew was omitted; it corrected the reading to ‘let them give us pulse’. The bulk of the hidden errors appear to be the fault of the printer: Ref. 1611 ‘hidden’ error Correction Date Exod. 38:11 hoopes hooks 1611 2nd edn Isa. 49:20 straight strait 1611 2nd edn Mal. 1:8 if hee offer if ye offer 1611 2nd edn Ecclus. 44:5 reiected recited 1611 2nd edn John 15:4 and in you and I in you 1611 2nd edn 1 Cor. 7:32 things that bel ¯ ogeth things that belong 1612 Ezek. 6:8 that he may haue that ye may have 1613 Wisdom 10:14 gaue them gave him 1613 Lev. 26:40 the iniquitie of their fathers their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers 1616 2 Esdras 16:52 yet a little iniquitie yet a little, and iniquity 1616 60 A Textual History of the King James Bible Ref. 1611 ‘hidden’ error Correction Date 1 Cor. 15:6 And that After that 1616 2 Tim. 4:13 bring with thee bring with thee, and the books 1616 Ps. 69:32 good God 1617 Jer. 51:12 watchman watchmen 1629 Ezek. 34:31 yee my flocke of my pasture ye my flock, the flock of my pasture 1629 Dan. 6:13 the captiuity of the children the children of the captivity 1629 1 Esdras 2:9 very free gifts very many free gifts 1629 1 Macc. 5:65 townes thereof [second occurrence] towers thereof 1629 1 Macc. 10:25 vnto him unto them 1629 2 Cor. 11:32 the citie the city of the Damascenes 1629 Rev. 13:6 them that dwelt them that dwell 1629 Ezek. 36:2 had said hath said 1630 Ezra 2:22 children men 1638 Ezek. 5:1 take the ballances take thee balances 1638 Ezek. 24:5 let him seethe let them seethe 1638 Ezek. 46:23 a new building a row of building 1638 Heb. 11:23 they not afraid they were not afraid 1638 1 Macc. 16:14 threescore and seuenth threescore and seventeenth 1769 Sometimes there is clear evidence of what caused him to go wrong. As noted above, p. 32, the error of 1 Cor. 15:6 comes from the printer’s eye slipping back to the previous verse. Ezra 2 lists at length the Israelites who returned fromthe Babylonian exile. For the most part the Hebrewuses qŒ, which the KJB renders as ‘the children of’, but at vv. 22, 23, 27 and 28 the Hebrew varies things by using : p.. The Bishops’ Bible gives ‘the men of’, and Bod 1602 shows that the translators intended to follow this literal rendering. But, forgivably lulled by the long succession of ‘children’, the printer put ‘children’ instead of ‘men’ at v. 22. The mistake was corrected by the second Cambridge edition, 1638. Sometimes the printer simply mis- understood what he was setting. At Ezek. 5:1 he put the apparently sensible ‘take the ballances’ where it should have been ‘take thee balances’ as in the similar phrases earlier in the verse. This error was sufficiently natural and inconspicuous that it too survived until 1638. On occasions the printer misread his copy (the marvel is that this hap- pened so rarely if his copy was Bod 1602 or anything like it). This is the likeliest explanation for the strange reading at Ecclus. 44:5, ‘such as found The first edition 61 out musical tunes, and reiected verses in writing’. ‘Reiected’ surely comes from mistaking ‘recited’, which is what the subsequent editions have. And carelessness presumably caused ‘threescore and seuenth’ instead of ‘three- score and seuenteenth’, the Bishops’ Bible reading, at 1 Macc. 16:14. The interesting thing is that this simple error of translation was not corrected until 1769. The two testaments were checked against the originals for some of the editions, but there was much less checking of the Apocrypha. Not all the hiddenerrors fit readily intothe groups I have identified. When Scrivener comments that ‘vnfaithfull’ instead of ‘unthankful’ for óycpio:cu (Wisdom 16:29) is ‘evidently an oversight’ (p. 180 n.), he is going as far as is reasonable in many instances. What is crucial is that there are errors in the text and that they come froma variety of sources. If they can be convincingly referred to the printer or to one of the scribes preparing the manuscript or to failure to notice a mistake in the Bishops’ Bible, then it is clear that they should be corrected. When they involve a sense of mistaken judgement on the translators’ part, things become much more doubtful. Such doubtful things become a major part of the subject as we turn to the development of the text as we now have it through the work of successive printers and editors. 4 The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 Introduction The King’s Printer hadthe monopoly for printing official Bibles, the Bishops’ Bible and the KJB, Prayer Books, official documents and statutes. As if this was not enough, he took on other work, including the Geneva Bible. Robert Barker held what should have been a very lucrative position, yet he was a poor businessman. Perhaps by the time he began printing the KJB he was in partnership with two men whose names also appear on the title pages of KJBs, Bonham Norton and John Bill. 1 In 1615 Barker’s son Christopher married Norton’s daughter Sarah, but three years later Barker was suing Norton and Bill ‘for the recovery of a moiety of the office and stock of the King’s Printing House’ (Plomer, p. 355). Litigation and imprisonment dogged them all for the rest of their lives, and titular and effective tenure of the office of King’s Printer passed between them as their fortunes varied. Norton became an implacable enemy, a bitter and malicious man. Tried with others in 1630 for ‘preferring a most false and scandalous petition to his Majestie against the Rt. Hon. the Lord Keeper’ and other such slanders and libels, he was sentenced to pay £3,000 to the King, and, as damages, the same to the Lord Chancellor; he was imprisoned ‘during his majesties pleasure’, and may still have been in prison when he died in 1635 (Plomer, pp. 365–8). Robert Barker fared little better. Though he had recovered the title of King’s Printer and held it to his death in 1645, he never recovered his financial position, and his last decade was spent as a debtor in the King’s Bench prison (Plomer, p. 368). Amidst such strife and under the aegis of such unfortunate men the KJB was printed. It is no wonder that the early printing history of the KJBis com- plex and obscure. In 1611 Barker’s men not only produced the first edition but may well have completed a second folio edition (H319). They also pro- duced a duodecimo NT (H310). In 1612 they produced two quarto editions 1 Plomer, p. 359. R. B. McKerrow gives the following summary of the imprints: ‘(1) Robert Barker alone down to July, 1617; (2) Bonham Norton and John Bill from July, 1617 to May 7, 1619; (3) Robert Barker and John Bill from May 8, 1619 to January, 1621; (4) Bonham Norton and John Bill from January, 1621 to October 21, 1629; (5) Robert Barker and John Bill from October 20, 1629 to John Bill’s death on May 5, 1630’ (Dictionary of Printers and Booksellers, 1577–1640, pp. 31–3, 201–5; as given in Herbert, p. 147). The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 63 (H313 and 314) and two octavo editions (H315 and 316). The second folio edition, the same that may have been completed in 1611, was in some way completed again in 1613, and another folio edition, in smaller black letter (H322), was also completed in this year. 1613 also saw the production of three more quartos (H330, 323 and 324) and two octavos (H321 and 326). So within three years the entire text seems to have been set thirteen times, and the NT alone once. This is an extraordinary amount of work, and is still more astonishing when one recalls that in this time Barker also printed perhaps four Geneva Bibles, two or three Geneva NTs and a Bishops’ Bible NT (H306, 307, 308, 312; 311, 327, 329; 328). With so much Bible-printing on hand, the highest standards of textual accuracy were hardly likely to be maintained. The most important question is this: Was the translators’ original used as master text for some or all of these editions? If not, what was? The textual evi- dence shows clearly that the original was not used except possibly in relation to a very few readings; rather, the later editions, as will be seen, depend in complex ways on their printed predecessors. This raises the possibility that the original was in some fundamental way unusable. It was probably a mess, as Bod 1602 is. Moreover, it may never have existed in a single, final form: annotations and summaries, for instance, may have been separate from the main text, and it is also, as earlier suggested (chapter 1), quite possible that Bilson and Smith fixed a significant amount of the detail as the text was set. Headings, if nothing else, must have been done this way. If this is so, then the first edition in effect constituted the translators’ final manuscript. Lastly, the state of the second edition suggests that there was some sort of accident in Barker’s printing house, and it is possible that this damaged or destroyed the master copy. Even if the translators’ original was usable, the practicalities of printing – particularly, printing under Barker’s aegis – may have dictated other ways of working. Reprinting from manuscript is comparatively slow and difficult, and fraught with dangers of excessive variation. Moreover, more than one edition may have been worked on at the same time, more than one compos- itor may have been working simultaneously on the same edition, and some of the work may have been contracted out. This is not impossible with a single master copy given excellent management, but it is much easier if there are several copies of the master text, that is, if the master text is a printed edition. Barker’s men needed to be quick and efficient – efficient in the sense that they should produce a reasonably uniform product with as little waste of their labour as possible. The foremost element in this efficiency was page-for-page setting, a com- mon practice at this time. Barker used four basic formats, large black letter folio, as in the first edition, roman type quarto, black letter quarto and roman type octavo. In each of these formats pages began and ended at the 64 A Textual History of the King James Bible identical point (occasionally a recto is not made uniform until the end of the verso of the page). Consequently sheets fromone setting could be mixed ad lib with sheets from another setting. Resetting of individual parts then need only take place when supplies of the relevant sheets were exhausted, thus keeping wastage to a minimum. Barker was for ever short of money and so always looking for a quick sale, even though waiting would have produced a better return. In a bill of complaint against Norton he refers to a debt of £202 to the Company of Stationers ‘which some of the Company demanded for satisfaction of imperfect books’ (Plomer, p. 358). Norton, in a cross petition of 1622, observed that Barker ‘very unadvisedly used (for present money) to sell his books . . . before they were half printed, at half the prices he might otherwise have sold the same’ (Plomer, p. 362). Plomer adds, either paraphrasing or as an inference, that thus Barker glutted the market, and he suggests that this gives us, perhaps, the clue towhat has for many years puzzledBible students, namely, the innumerable variations found in the different issues of the Bible after 1611. The first edition of the Authorized Version was no doubt completed and issued at once, and a second edition put in hand. This last, however, and later ones, were printed in parts, when other work was slack, and these incomplete parts Barker sold whenever he could. (Plomer, p. 362) Given the extent to which Bible printing dominated Barker’s work, the idea of it being done in slack times may not be right. But the general suggestion seems sound. Sheets were gathered into volumes quickly and somewhat carelesslyas orders came in. The carelessness came throughtakingat random from the multiple printings of sheets that lay around in his printing house, so producing considerable variety within and between editions. This variety is very striking in the second edition and continues through the later folios. Finally, as already noted, there were accidents. It is impossible otherwise to account for some aspects of the second folio edition. An accident of some sort must have happened to Boel’s engraving for the title page of the first edition. It is clearly better than the title page with woodcut borders found almost uniformly in the other folio editions; moreover, Barker had an imitation of it made for the first quarto edition, so suggesting that it was designed to be the distinctive title page for the KJB. The very limited use of Boel’s original can only be explained by its being lost or damaged. In summary, the evidence, incomplete and teasing as it is, suggests that the early printings of the KJB were made under considerable pressure to produce as much as possible as fast as possible, and that the primary thing sacrificed to this pressure was sustained fidelity to the translators’ copy. It may have been consulted on occasions, and efforts probably were made to give scholarly revision to readings that appeared problematic, but overall Barker’s later editions introduced more errors than corrections. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 65 The second folio edition or ‘She’ Bible (H319) The nicknames ‘He’ and ‘She’ (after their readings at Ruth 3:15) make the first and second editions sound like a pair of equal age and standing, and they have often been taken as such. Though it is probable that the ‘She’ Bible, in one of its varying forms, dates from 1611, 2 it is genuinely a second edition, and better referred to as such to keep clear what will become very apparent: that it is, comparatively, of little value as evidence for the text the translators created. Pollard writes vehemently of the designations ‘He’ and ‘She’: all suchnicknames for editions of theBibleareobjectionable, andthis, whichsuggests that the two editions forma pair, is mischievous. Their relationis not that of equality as between man and woman, but the second is derived fromthe first, as a child from its parents, an entirely new and distinct edition, reprinted from the original, and not a contemporaneous issue. (Pollard, p. 36) The nicknames are pernicious inasecondway: theysuggest that the paternity of later editions can be determined by which of the readings they have at Ruth 3:15. Since ‘she went’ is the commoner reading, the second edition is taken as being much more influential than it really was: most of the early editions that have ‘she went’ derive from the first edition, not the second. The second edition is a page-for-page reprint of the first. The relationship quickly becomes clear through a comparison of the typography, especially in the matter of spacing: the compositor of the second edition adjusted his work to conform it to the first edition. This is most obvious at Exod. 14:10, where the first edition repeats three lines. The second corrects the error and so has to add space to the page to keep it finishing at the requisite point. The first compositor would have spotted his error instantly if he was working from the second edition. 3 Whereas the first edition is almost completely uniform, the second is a mixture. The NT title page is dated 1611, but the title page of the whole is usually dated 1613. In some copies this is changed to 1611, while a few are dated 1611 (Herbert, p. 136). The title page itself is the woodcut version 2 A number of second edition readings are found in the 1612 editions in smaller formats (see appendix 3). I think it highly unlikely that any of these editions preceded the second edition in its initial form. 3 Only Scrivener (pp. 7–12) has taken‘She’ tobe prior. He thought that the general superiority of ‘He’ showed that it was a revision of ‘She’ (p. 8) rather than that ‘She’ was a corruption of ‘He’. Nobody has followed Scrivener, especially since the publication of Smith’s Study of the Great ‘She’ Bible. Smith shows that the need to control space so that ‘She’ conforms to ‘He’ is particularly evident where chapter initials are concerned: ‘She’ often uses larger initials, frequently necessitating adjustments of space. Smith shows that the number of cases where one might argue that an adjustment had taken place in ‘He’ is small compared with the cases that argue that ‘She’ came second. 66 A Textual History of the King James Bible found in some first editions rather than Boel’s engraving. The mixed dates suggest that printing began in 1611; while some copies may have been sold in that year, the work was not finished until 1613; evidently about one third of the work was destroyed, so the text from Judges 13 to Ezekiel 20 had to be reset and printed. 4 Now, the general uniformity of the first edition makes it likely, as Plomer suggested (above, p. 64), that it sold out quickly. The second edition was to supply further demand, and copies were made up intermittently as purchase orders came in. The muddle in Barker’s printing house was such that, once varying sheets were available, no two copies were made up of the identical set of sheets. Moreover, sheets continued to be available when the later large folios were made, sosome copies of themhave sheets fromdifferent editions, including sheets from the second edition. 5 The most important consequence of this relationship for understanding the history of the text is that the later editions used previous printed editions as copy text: if they consulted the translators’ original, that was secondary and occasional. So, while the second edition – and to some extent the later Barker editions – may sometimes reflect what was in the original better than the first edition, it is not a better reproduction of the original. Rather, it exhibits the usual characteristics of a manual copy, whether by a scribe or a compositor, of introducing more errors than corrections, and of having some ‘corrections’ that are really simplifications of something difficult in the original. 4 Quires signed Aa-Zzz, together with some other sheets (E 3 , P 2,3 , X 2 ); Pollard, who gives this information following Smith, also suggests the following folios escaped the general destruction: Aa 1 , Ff 2 , Gg 1,2 , Kk 1 , Tt 1–3 , Aaa 2 , Bbb 3 , Iii 2 , Lll 1 , Ooo 2,3 , Qqq 3 , Sss 1–2 and Zzz 3 (p. 35). 5 The bibliographical problems created by Barker’s workers have been compounded by Bible collectors and sellers, notably Lea Wilson and Francis Fry in the nineteenth century, who transferred sheets between copies and added facsimiles to bring the copies to some kind of ‘perfection’, or, as with the frequent alteration of the date on the title page from 1613 to 1611, to increase their retail value. Graphic evidence of this tampering is to be found in Fry’s copies of the second edition now held by the Bible Society Library. One of them has a number of loose sheets, including a sheet that is missing from another of the copies. Fry’s note in a copy of the 1617 folio (BS H353(2)) shows how he worked and is also worth preserving because of the bibliographical query it raises: Authorised Version 1614–1617. This copy of the Bible has the Title dated 1614. No edition of this year is known. This title is probably unique & undescribed. I bought it with the Genealogies, the Old Testament and the Apocrypha now in this volume & wanting a new Testament . . . I therefore added the NewTest- of 1617 &bound them; thus preserving it in its original state so far as I could, and completing it. Occasionally even first edition sheets are to be found in later editions; a copy of the 1617 folio in the Turnbull Library has fol. Cc2 (but no others in this quire) from the first edition. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 67 The presence of errors is apparent as early as the dedicatory page, which includes this: THE TRANSLATORS OE THE BIBLE, with Grace, Mercie, and Peace, through Iesvs Chkist our Lord. The second edition has its own set of typographical errors, and it would be wrong to presume that, because it corrects most of the first edition’s typographical errors, it is therefore better printed. For a general idea of the relationship between the two editions we may start withthe same page of Genesis (plate 4) that was usedas a specimenpage for the first edition. The settings are far from the identical twins that they appear at first sight. The second edition uses a different initial for the first verse of the chapter; it takes up seven lines, so the verse needs an extra line. Consequently, the page finishes one line earlier and the catchword is differ- ent (on the other side of the folio this discrepancy is made good by reducing v. 26 from three lines to two). Five verses have changes of layout that do not affect how much space they take (16:11 and 12; 17:2, 7 and 8), and there are similar variations in the margin. The first edition’s ‘LORD’ is changed to ‘Lord’, conforming the second edition with the practice that the first edi- tion did not establish until it reached Exodus (differences of this sort help confirm the chronological relationship between the two editions). The sec- ond edition increases the use of capitalisation (‘Name’ (16:13), ‘Almightie’ (17:1), ‘Couenant’ (17:2 etc.) and ‘Nations’ (17:6)). There are spelling vari- ations, usually without any obvious reason. So ‘maid’ is twice left unaltered and twice changed to ‘mayd’ (16:5, 6), and ‘shal be’ (17:11) becomes ‘shalbe’ while ‘shalbe’ in the next verse becomes ‘shall be’. In short, there are numer- ous variations: in the right hand column only v. 3 is reproduced identically. The compositor did not set out to make an exact copy of the first edition as far as particulars of typography are concerned. He regarded this aspect of his work as something that could be treated freely: he has not tied himself to a uniformity of printing, or to an identity of typography, as some peradven- ture would wish that he had done. 6 It was (happily, perhaps) an inexact age, and the freedom with English that the translators wrote of in the passage I have just adapted is mirrored in the compositor’s irreverent treatment of his predecessor’s work. He might be right to be irreverent. Unless one thinks the kingdom of God is not only words and syllables but also characters and amper- sands, hyphens and spaces, so far nothing meaningful has been changed. But some of the variations do begin to be significant. The typographical 6 KJB preface, fol. B2 r , adapted. 68 A Textual History of the King James Bible Plate 4. Second edition KJB, Genesis 16–17. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 69 errors notedinthe chapter summary(‘Izsaac’), at 17:4(for †) andat 17:8m. (‘soieurnings’) are corrected, though nothing is done with the asterisk in 17:4. Another error in the chapter summary is identified and corrected: ‘23 Abram’ should indeed read ‘23 Abraham’ because that is his name after v. 5. This last change moves beyond correction of obvious typographical errors and shows that critical attention could be applied to the first edition’s text. Finally, there is the textual variation already noted, ‘and Abram’ for ‘but Abram’ (16:6). Most of the verses on this page – and all but one other in this column – begin with ‘and’, so this difference may represent a lapse of attention by the compositor of the second edition. But there is another possibility: ‘and Abram’ is found as a deliberate change in Bod 1602, so the second edition may reflect genuine recourse to the translators’ own work. This specimen page gives a clear sense of the quantity and nature of the variations between the two editions. It suggests that the second edition may be valuable in the identification of mundane errors in the first and that it will sometimes be genuinely important in giving readings the translators intended. The relationship between first and second editions is by no means con- stant. It ranges from careless introduction of new mistakes to careful cor- rection of mistakes. Often the new mistakes are blatant and insignificant. Nobody would ever take ‘ehat tateth’ (Jer. 31:30, some copies) as a reading to be weighedagainst ‘that eateth’, nor ‘Dour God’ (2Chr. 20:12) against ‘Oour God’. The first simply tells of human frailty, but the second is more reveal- ing. O looks rather like D in black letter (see ‘LORD’ in the specimen page). Perhaps the type was incorrectly distributed, or perhaps the compositor was working mechanically, neither thinking about what he was reproducing nor looking properly at it. For another example, one wonders what the odds are of a mis-distributed n turning up in place of a u identically in both editions. Yet this happens with ‘concn-bine’ (1 Chr. 7:14). The word is hyphenated over a line: I suspect the compositor saw‘concn-’ and reproduced it without thinking. The significant variations are those that are plausible, and it is important to establish what degree of scholarly care went into them. A seemingly triv- ial variation at Isa. 10:19 gives a standard to which such variations may be related. It concerns the placing of a reference mark. The first edition reads, ‘andthe rest of the trees of his forest shall be †few, that achildmaywrite them’. The margin is, ‘† Heb. number’, leading the reader to expect a synonymous relationshipbetween‘few’ and‘number’. But, toEnglisheyes, ‘number’ looks less like a possible synonymfor ‘few’ than it does for ‘write’: the verse would be easier to read as ‘shall be few, that a child may number them’ than as ‘shall be number, that a child may write them’. So the compositor of the second edition, alert to the presence of mistakes in his predecessor’s work, moved the † to go with ‘write’. What this shows is attention without scholarship, 70 A Textual History of the King James Bible for the word translated as ‘few’ is ¬Yõ. ‘number’. 7 The compositor either could not or did not refer to the Hebrew; nor did he refer to the translators’ manuscript, which must have had the correct annotation (one cannot imag- ine how the verse came out correct in the first edition if the manuscript was wrong). This is not an isolated instance of miscorrection of something that looks like a mistake, but it is unusually clear in that one cannot take it as an accidental change and one can see exactly why it was made: the text was obscure to the compositor and he made his best guess as to what it should be. Here are a few more examples of changes that involve either deliberate revision of perceived errors or accidental simplification of the text. At Jer. 5:15 the second edition changes ‘vpon you’ to ‘vpon thee’, which fits the English context better but goes against the plural in the Hebrew. At Jer. 12:7, the first edition keeps a Hebrew singular – ‘the hand of her enemies’ – but the second edition gives the more natural English phrase ‘the hands of her enemies’. Twice the second edition changes ‘flay’ to ‘slay’, Lev. 1:6 (‘hee shall flay the burnt offering’) and 2 Chr. 29:34 (‘they could not flay all the burnt offerings’); in each case the change to ‘slay’ makes sense but is wrong. ‘Among the bushes they prayed’ for ‘they brayed’ (Job 30:7) seems to be an error of the same sort: either the compositor misread or he assumed typographical errors in the first edition where there were none. A compositor who makes such corrections is twice untrustworthy: he reflects neither the work of the translators nor scholarly consideration of the original. In general terms, he is less entitled to credit than a printer or an editor who has direct access to the translators’ work, or an editor who examines the text in relation to the text in the original languages. At its most misleading, his work may plausibly but wrongly revise a difficult reading, producing readings that have been generally accepted but that go against the deliberate decisions of the translators. This happened at Hos. 6:5 where ‘shewed’ was changed to ‘hewed’. It may be that the change at Ruth 3:15 that produced the nicknames is a simplification of the same sort. Nevertheless, the men who made the second edition were in a special position. They were close to the fountains: they may have had access to the original manuscript, they may have been able to refer questions to the translators, and they had the experience of making the first edition. On occasions, as with ‘and Abram’, they could have been working directly from the translators’ own work or incorporating revisions the translators had directed them to make (whether in response to queries or from their own observation of the printed text). If this did happen with any frequency, the value of the second edition would be much higher. 7 Also translated as ‘few’ at Num. 9:20, Deut. 33:6, Job 16:22 and Ezek. 12:16. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 71 Variations where the second edition seems to go beyond what either an intelligent compositor might deliberately make or a tired compositor might accidentally make to the first edition would be the most important evidence for such valuable work. Mistakes that come directly from the 1602 Bishops’ Bible would show that the second edition was set with one eye on that text, or rather, on an annotated version of that text such as Bod 1602, but there seems to be only one of these, Judg. 7:4, ‘the people are yet two many’: ‘two’ remains uncorrectedinBod1602. Similarly, some readings that correct errors coincide with 1602 readings that are left un-annotated. The second edition’s ‘ye shall eat the blood of no maner of flesh’ (Lev. 17:14) is identical with 1602; the first edition has a double negative, ‘ye shall not eat . . .’. In the next chapter, 1602 and the second edition have ‘of the land of Canaan’ (18:3), but the first edition omits the article. Examples such as this last obviously do not need the 1602 text to explain them: inserting ‘the’ into ‘of land of Canaan’ is an easy correction, especially as ‘of the land of Egypt’ occurs earlier in the verse. Readings that coincide with Bod 1602 annotations suggest not just use of the printed 1602 text but recourse to the translators’ own work. Here are several examples to go with Gen. 16:6. Micah 7:7 is significant because the 1611 reading does not appear to contain a mistake when looked at just as a piece of English: ‘therefore I will looke vnto you the Lord: I will waite for the God of my saluation: my God will heare me’. ‘Vnto you the Lord’, following the Hebrew and the unannotated reading of Bod 1602, should be ‘vnto the Lord’, and this is what is found in the second edition. ‘You’ might look odd on close inspection because the element of personal address is absent from the latter part of the verse, but such variations of personal position are quite frequent, so one would think this example might well go unremarked. At Exod. 38:11 the first editionreads, ‘the hoopes of the pillars’; Bod1602 shows the translators hadchanged1602’s ‘knops andhoopes of the pillars’ to ‘hookes of the pillars & their fillets’. The first edition, influenced by the 1602 text, made a mistake. At Ezra 3:5, the second edition again reproduces a Bod 1602 annotation, clarifying the first edition’s obscure ‘that willingly offred, offered a free will offering’: ‘that willingly offred a free will offering’. These latter two examples might be explained without reference to the annotations: ‘hookes’ is a sensible correction because it is the word found in the surrounding verses, and ‘that willingly offred a free will offering’ looks like better sense. One could not argue with any confidence that the remaining second edition readings that coincide with Bod 1602 depend on recourse to the translators’ work, so they are best seen as sensible corrections. There are some other variations that suggest either recourse to the translators’ work (thoughtheydonot coincide withBod1602) or scholarlycorrection. 1Macc. 10:47 has a muddle that one suspects goes back to a misinterpretation of the 72 A Textual History of the King James Bible translators’ work: ‘hee was the first that entreated of peace with them’. The margin reads perplexingly: ‘True.’ Smith offers this speculation: in the Latin of Pagninus ‘qui princeps veræ pacis cum ipsis constituendæ fuerat.’ Obviously this veræ is the source of ‘true’ in the English, and both are inserted to prevent a contradiction with verse 3. Scrivener thinks it clear that [the second edition] represents the original reading and [the first] the correction. I should rather suppose that the translators first wrote ‘peace’ and then inserted the word ‘true,’ writing it at the side; the printer misinterpreted their caret, and put the word in the margin as an anomalous marginal note. The printer of [the second edition], perceivingsomethingunusual, refers tothe original MS., andinterprets the intention of the translators correctly. Smith adds that he does ‘not put forth this explanation with any confi- dence, except as a proof of the insecurity of subjective critical judgements’ (pp. 6–7). Certainly the correction seems to go beyond what a compositor could do by himself: if there was no reference to the translators’ work then some scholarship was applied. At a minimum, this consisted of looking at Geneva and finding there ‘for he was the first that had intreated of true peace with them’. Avery fewother corrections tothe marginalsoshoweither the translators’ work or independent scholarship. The second edition sorts out a muddle at Wisdom 3:14, where two notes have been conflated and a reference mark omitted, it supplies the missing reference at 2 Kgs 17:14, and it corrects the order of the notes at Isa. 7:3 and Mark 7:4. Against such examples, the second edition frequently mis-copies references (see throughout the table of differences, appendix 2). Again the picture is one of occasional valuable work amidst errors. Scrivener, editing the KJB in the late nineteenth century and wrongly thinking the secondeditionprecededthe first, nevertheless foundsuch‘great superiority’ in the first edition that, for all that he followed more second edition readings than are found in modern KJBs, he judged the second edi- tion’s influence on his text to be ‘infinitesimally small’ (pp. 7, 14). Moreover, he thought most of the variations that he adopted from the second edition were ‘either purely indifferent, or would have been received on their own merits, without reference to the prior claims of the copy that contains them’ (p. 14). A general scan of appendix 2, where the second edition readings that are found in the current text (that is, the text currently published by Cambridge and Oxford University Presses) are highlighted, confirms his judgement. There are a mere thirty such readings, half a dozen of which are matters of English spelling. Appendix 2 has two further significant uses. It gives a detailed basis for determining which of the first two editions was the base text for subsequent editions, and, throughcollationwiththese editions, reveals the main variants that the King’s Printer brought to the text. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 73 Overall, then, the second edition is of slight value for refining the text given in the first edition. It contains occasional revisions that appear to be scholarly and rare hints of recourse to the translators’ own work. If the original manuscript was held in Barker’s printing house, it was hardly ever referred to. For all the respect afforded the second edition, its practical influence on the text is limited to a few well-known readings. Finally, it is worth noting that it offers one other reading besides ‘and Abram’ that might well be followed: ‘Ishui’ for ‘Isui’ (Gen. 46:17) – provided one accepts that names need special treatment. It also occasionally antici- pates modern spelling, as in ‘thou art waxed’ for ‘thou art waxen’ (Deut. 32:15). On the other hand, it occasionally influences the text where evidence from Bod 1602 suggests it should not: ‘she went’ (Ruth 3:15) and ‘hewed’ (Hos. 6:5). And at Jer. 8:14 an incorrect variation still survives: ‘water of gall’, where the first edition’s ‘waters of gall’ gives the Hebrew plural. The early quartos and octavos 8 Beginning in 1612, Barker printed complete KJBs in three basic formats: black letter quartos, romantype quartos andromantype octavos. 9 Page-for- page reprinting was used in each format, so subsequent editions generally used a predecessor inthe same format as the copy text. 10 This could have led, through reproduction and accumulation of errors, to three separate textual traditions inadditiontothe texts foundinthe folios, but this didnot happen, in part because the peculiarities of these editions lasted only as long as they continued to be reprinted page-for-page. Textually, they are dead-ends. The relatively few valuable new readings found in them were either transmitted through the folio editions or were re-created in the course of later editorial 8 As a reminder that Bibles have anindividuality (andanantidote toexcessive bibliographical detail), here is a recipe found on the verso of the NT title page of one of the quartos (CUL Syn 6 61 32): Take one Handful of Horehound Ditto of Hissop and a small D. ◦ of Rue, boil them in a Quart of strong Beer till half wasted, then strain it from the Stalks and put to it one Pound and half of Coarse Sugar then boil it to a thin Strul [illeg.; ?gruel]; when cold put to it one Pint of the best Brandy and bottle it up. N. B. Take half a wine Glass any Time when Faint, for a cough or Decline. 9 Editions, 1612–15, as listed in Herbert: Roman type quartos: 1612, H313, H314; 1613, H320, H324, H325; 1615, H339. Black letter quartos: 1613, H323; 1614, H331, H332. Octavos: 1612, H315, H316; 1613, H321, H326; 1614, H333, H334, H335; 1615, H343. Identification of distinct editions is not always certain. 10 A new roman type quarto was introduced in 1616 (H347). Herbert notes that ‘all the London octavo editions from 1612, 13 to 1631 read together; and the publishers seem to have freely mixed the sheets printed at various dates’ (Herbert, p. 160). 74 A Textual History of the King James Bible work. This does not mean that these editions are valueless: collectively, they have much to tell about the King’s Printer’s sense of the text and the way he dealt with corrections. The few new readings may be surveyed first. Many of them involve the spelling of names and probably have little significance. For instance, the first edition has both ‘Galilee’ and ‘Galile’. The 1612 editions all leave ‘Galile’ unchanged at Mark 15:41, but all change it to ‘Galilee’ at Luke 4:44. All except one of the octavos make the change at Mark 16:7. But spelling of names can be a ticklish scholarly problem, and some of the 1612 readings may be genuinely scholarly. All the 1612 editions change ‘Iimla’ (2 Chr. 18:7, 8) to ‘Imla’, arguably better reflecting xluª. This has become the current KJB spelling, but it comes from the Cambridge, 1638 edition, where the change was made again, presumably independently. Similarly, many of the readings that do not involve names are likely to be casual printer’s variations, but a few may be deliberate and scholarly. The 1612 quartos change ‘upon earth’ to ‘upon the earth’ at Deut. 4:32; this may be for more normal English, but it could be a deliberate reflection of the article in the Hebrew. Similarly, one of the octavos changes ‘all people’ (Ps. 99:2) to ‘all the people’, a change reintroduced in 1769. 11 Beside these readings, these editions also have their liberal peppering of errors, some of which are worth recording. Some copies of the first octavo (1612, H315) read ‘printers haue persecuted mee’ instead of ‘princes haue persecuted me’ (Ps. 119:161). It was tempting to take this as an epi- graph for this book. One can imagine that a disgruntled compositor made this change, that it was quickly discovered, the compositor dismissed and the reading corrected in subsequent copies. Other errors, such as ‘is there no blame in Gilead’ (Jer. 8:22, 1613 quarto, H324) and ‘Darius the sting’ (1 Esdras 4:47, 1612 quarto, H314), were more innocent. Herbert’s catalogue, by noting which reading is followed at Ruth 3:15 and sometimes through explicit statements as to which of the first two editions is followed, effectively divides these editions into those that derive from the 11 References for readings in the current text that are found first in 1612 (for details, see the table of variants); ‘(n)’ signifies spelling of a name. All 1612 editions: Ezra 4:9; Judith 16:24; 2 Macc. 4:4 (n); Luke 4:44 (n); 1 Cor. 7:32; 2 Cor. 5:20. All except one octavo: 1 Macc. 4:29; 11:56 (n); Mark 16:7 (n). Both quartos: Gen. 22:7; 31:1; 37:36 (n); Num. 3:35 (spelling); 24:6; Deut. 4:32; 33:5 (n); 1 Kgs 3:4; 18:28; 1 Chr. 12:5 (n); Ezra 10:38 (n); Isa. 10:26; Jer. 35:13; Mal. 2:2; Tobit 4:12 (n); Ecclus. 51:12; 1 Macc. 8:8 (n); 9:35 (n); 10:45; 2 Macc. 3:12; Luke 24:13 (n; also in 1612 NT); Rom. 6:12; 7:2, 13. Both octavos: Deut. 28:42; Josh. 3:10; 1 Chr. 27:27 (n); 2 Chr. 18:7, 8 (n); 1 Esdras 5:66 (n); Ecclus. 49:8 (n); 1 Macc. 5:9 (n). One octavo: Gen. 10:14 (n); 2 Sam. 8:11; 2 Chr. 34:12 (n); Neh. 11:24 (n), 28 (n); Ps. 99:2; Dan. 5:31; 1 Esdras 1:39; Mark 12:26 (n); 2 Cor. 5:1. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 75 first and those that derive from the second. Collation with the list of first- and second-edition variants, and with the list of typographical errors in the first edition, shows that this is not so: all used the first edition as the basic text and added some second-edition readings. Collectively there are some seventy out of the second edition’s readings or errors listed in appendix 2. I give these in appendix 3, dividing them into two groups. The first group, consisting of thirty-four readings is the most interesting. Though no single edition through to 1617 gives them all, there are grounds for thinking of them as standard corrections. Most of them are still found in modern edi- tions and all of them, save perhaps the two problems of punctuation at the ends of verses (Luke 1:77 and Phil. 1:4) seem to be deliberate rather than accidental. Of the changes not followed in modern editions, ‘Caldees’ (2 Kgs 24:2) regularises a spelling that was later changed consistently to ‘Chaldees’. The misplaced † in Isa. 10:19 appears to be deliberate though mistaken (see above, p. 69). ‘Serebias’ (1 Esdras 8:54 m.), though no longer found, cor- rects an error, ‘Olofernes’ (Judith passim) regularises a spelling that was, like ‘Caldees’, later changed to the other form. Finally, ‘not high priest’ (2 Macc. 4:13) is an easily defended reading both in terms of the original and the earlier translations. There must have beensome methodof noting these corrections since they generally go beyond changes that one would expect a sensible compositor to make unaided. They could either have been marked in a master copy of the first edition, or there was a separate list of them that the compositor was expected to refer to as he worked (either from the first edition or from a previous edition in the same format as the one he was setting). I guess that there was a list and suggest that it consisted, more or less, of the thirty-four entries in the first part of appendix 3. This might most easily account for the variations between editions, notably between editions in the same format. Acompositor might well not look at a list at the appropriate moment and so leave unchanged a reading he should have changed (I noted earlier that there seems to have been a reluctance to go backwards to make corrections, above, p. 50). Any copy of the first edition might do for setting from if there was a list to amend it by, so setting more than one edition at a time would not be a problem. The contents of the list might change accidentally, but it is more likely that a fewentries were deleted when discovered to be mistaken, while a few others were added. For example, the incorrectness of the misplaced † at Isa. 10:19 might have been realised after a time, leading to its deletion, and possibly even to a note that a printing from the second edition such as the 1617 folio should follow the first edition at this point. Similarly, ‘she went’ at Ruth 3:15 may have been added to the list after the first editions in the smaller formats had been printed. The second group of entries in appendix 3 is given for completeness. It shows the other instances where these editions agree withthe secondedition. In two cases errors are reproduced in a good number of the editions: ‘Shuah’ 76 A Textual History of the King James Bible instead of ‘Suah’ for \: (1 Chr. 7:36) and, more seriously, ‘the Lord was an enemie’ for ‘the Lord was as an enemie’ (Lam. 2:5). A fully satisfactory account of how all the variants in appendix 3 were reproduced is probably impossible, but it is worth observing finally that the problems of explainingthe readings become insuperable if one supposes that an effort was made to correct the second edition text by the first. Variety would still have to be accounted for, together with a very much larger list of readings reproduced in all editions to 1616 that are peculiar, sometimes very peculiar, to the first edition. The 1613 folio (H322) The 1613 folio is in smaller black letter, and no doubt was designed as a cheaper alternative for poorer churches. By getting 72 lines to the page instead of 52, and more characters to a line, it reduced the number of leaves from 732 to 508 (Pollard, p. 34 n.). Textually, it is of no more importance than its contemporaries in smaller formats, but, as the first folio in a newformat, is worth some examination. It introduces four readings that have become standard: ‘that ye may have’ for ‘that he may haue’ (Ezek. 6:8), ‘she poured it not’ for ‘she powred it’ (Ezek. 24:7), ‘as a flower’ for ‘as floure’ (2 Esdras 15:50) and ‘what thy right hand doeth’ for ‘what thy right doeth’ (Matt. 6:3). 12 The first three of these correct mistakes, while the last is unnecessary and goes against the evidence of Bod 1602 where ‘what thy right doeth’ is left unchanged. It also introduces seven accepted spellings of names. Finally, it has ‘fleshly’ for ‘fleshy’ (2 Cor. 3:3), a reading that has had a long life and is still occasionally to be found. ‘Nearly all the other variations’, writes Scrivener, ‘arise from the glaring misprints of this handsome but inaccurate volume’ (p. 17). 13 This is right. The 1613 folio is another characteristic piece of Barker work, a copy from earlier work that introduces its fair share of errors but has little or nothing 12 Adetailed collationof this editionwiththe first editionis givenat the beginning of The Holy Bible (Oxford, 1833). The editors’ stated purpose was to show the reader ‘how far it was thought necessary to correct the Authorized Text in the time of the original Translators’, which misleadingly implies that the list is full of deliberate corrections. Scrivener also thought four of the 412 variations in the collation were ‘manifest improve- ments’, but two of these are found in earlier editions: Ezra 3:5 in the second edition, 1 Macc. 4:29 in 1612, and a third, 2 Thess. 2:15, has not gained acceptance. He also thought that the reading ‘word’ for ‘words’ (Dan. 9:12) came from an adoption of the Hebrew qere (p. 16); I think it more likely to be an error. 13 Among the ‘glaring misprints’ are ‘she delighted herself’ for ‘she defiled her selfe’ (Ezek. 23:7), an example of the compositor’s imagination being transported by the context, and ‘singers and archers’ for ‘slingers and archers’ (1 Macc. 9:11). The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 77 in it that goes back to the translators’ manuscript or that reflects scholarly revision. The variants in Genesis confirm the tendency to error: 1611 1613 2:24 and shall cleaue and cleaue 3:5 day ye eate thereof, then your day when ye eate thereof, your 7:20 vpward vpwards 12:14 shee was very faire she was faire 14:24 portion of the men portion of the olde men 22:13 Abraham lifted Abraham lift 25:19 are are 27:44 furie turne away furie passe away 27:45 of you both in one day of you in one day 28:3 make thee fruitfull make the fruitful 39:6 bread which he did eate bread he did eate 42:31 said vnto him said vnto them 47:5 are come vnto thee are came vnto thee 47:26 of the priests onely of priests only Perhaps 14:24 is a correction to enhance the contrast between cï√SU (‘the young men’) and c: n3W (‘the men’), but the changes at 27:44 and 45 cannot be based on the Hebrew. The question of whether the first or the second edition was used as master copy may be taken a little further using the selective collation given in appendix 4. As explained there, the collation is confined to readings that are likeliest to reveal which edition was being used. Acomplex, sometimes clear, sometimes puzzling picture emerges. The 1613 folio took the first edition for copy at least through to the end of Judges. In this part it occasionally reproduces errors that are peculiar to the first edition, as at Gen. 17:4 ( for † and a marginal reference omitted), and it coincides with the second edition only five times, four of which appear to be standard corrections. Ruth to 1 Kings looks more likely to have been set from the second edition, as does much of the books of Chronicles. The end of 2 Chronicles through to Esther appears tofollowthe first edition, Jobthe second, andPsalms toProverbs the first. The Song of Songs and Isaiah probably followthe second edition. Then the first edition is followed through to the end of the Apocrypha. Matthew follows the second edition, Mark to Acts the first; thereafter the second may possibly have been used. Besides the information in appendix 4, these observations are supported by the occasional reproduction of errors, such as the first edition’s for † at Ezra 8:17 and‘fensed ’ at Ps. 31:21 m., andthe secondedition’s ‘tosee whither the vine flourished’ for ‘to see whether . . .’ at Song 6:11. It may be useful to give more detail for the conclusion that Matthew comes from the second edition. Matthew follows first-edition readings in several places where the 78 A Textual History of the King James Bible second edition is obviously wrong, 14 but it also keeps second-edition errors at 10:38 m. (‘26’ for ‘24’) and 11:7 (‘he’ for ‘ye’). Only at 13:45 does it follow the first edition where it might have followed the second (‘goodly pearles’ in preference to ‘good pearls’). Against this one instance, the second edition is followed four times where the first might have been followed: ‘way side’ for ‘wayes side’ (13:4), ‘like vnto a graine’ for ‘like to a graine’ (13:31), ‘went out’ for ‘went’ (18:30), and ‘any man’ for ‘a man’ (22:24). Occasionally one might argue that the 1613 folio picks and chooses between the first two editions, but generally it is indiscriminate, using one or other edition as copy for stretches at a time. This suggests that there was now no single copy identified as the master and that Barker’s workers had little sense of difference between the first two folios. Careful comparison would have been needed to distinguish a first edition from a second edition (the modern scholar knows to look at Ruth 3:15, but did Barker’s men know this?). It is quite possible that a compositor, beginning his day’s work, some- times picked up a first edition and sometimes a second edition to work from (similar suppositions might be made if the work was subdivided among compositors or even sometimes contracted out). One large folio, it seems, was as good as another. If so, it is more a matter of chance than policy that the editions in the smaller formats followed the first edition, and it will be no surprise to find that the later editions appear random in their textual allegiances. The 1616 small folio, roman type (H349) The 1616 folio is set from the first edition and contains only a sprinkling of second-edition readings. It has some new work, supplying twenty read- ings that have become standard, together with eleven spellings of names and four other matters of spelling, but not enough to justify Scrivener’s judgement that this ‘appears to be the first edition . . . which was submit- ted to any considerable revision’. 15 Some of these readings do appear to be scholarly corrections involving errors that are difficult to spot; others are simplifications of difficulties that perhaps should not be called scholarly. 14 Matt. 12:40 m. (the second edition’s ‘87’ is impossible), 14:19 (verse number restored), 24 summary (‘calamities’ for ‘clamities’), 26 summary (omitted number restored) and 26:36 (‘Jesus’ for ‘Judas’). 15 Scrivener, p. 17. The readings are at Lev. 25:23; 26:40; Deut. 16:5; Josh. 7:14; 1 Kgs 13:11; 2 Chr. 26:18; 32:5; Ezra 4:24; Job 39:30; Song 5:12; Jer. 49:1; Ezek. 23:23; 2 Esdras 16:52; Matt. 16:19; Luke 23:19; 1 Cor. 4:9; 15:6; Eph. 4:24; 6:24; 2 Tim. 4:13; spellings of names: 1 Chr. 3:2; 15:18; 2 Chr. 11:20; 2 Esdras 1:40; 10:47; 1 Macc. 11:6; 15:23; Matt. 20:29; Mark 14:32; Rom. 16:10; Rev. 7:5; spellings: Ps. 143:9; Prov. 20:14; Amos 1:1; Acts 4:17. Scrivener (p. 18) gives a list of 1616 corrections that were overlooked in the 1617 folio. Most of them originate not in 1616 but in the second edition or the 1612 quartos. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 79 Some knowledge either of the originals or of older translations is brought to bear. At Lev. 26:40 the first edition has an omission: ‘if they shall confesse the iniquitie of their fathers’ should be ‘if they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers’. Now, the omission is not obvious, so its correction probably reflects genuine knowledge: either information was supplied to the printer of this folio or there was scholarly work in house (reference to the translators’ manuscript seems unlikely since Bod 1602 has ‘iniquities of their fathers’). This correction could have been made from knowledge of the older English versions, as could correction of a similar hidden omission at 2 Tim. 4:13, where the printer of the first edition seems to have been misled by the first part of the verse: ‘the cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou commest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments’; 1616 restores the earlier versions’ ‘and the books’ after ‘bring with thee’. Some of the other readings clearly show recourse to them where the first edition appears difficult, as in the correction of ‘prepared’ to ‘repaired’ at 2 Chr. 32:5, or the substitution of the older ‘appointed to death’ for ‘approued to death’ (1 Cor. 4:9). 16 So the 1616 folio has a mixture of simplification and scholarship, which, on balance, seems to come from knowledge of the older translations. The revisions may result fromnotes suppliedtothe printer, andit is worthnoting that many of them were not immediately picked up by other editions. Its readings were consulted by the makers of the Cambridge 1629 edition and many became current from that edition. The 1617 folio (H353) This, the third large folio edition, supplies six surviving readings (and an amusing misprint in a header, ‘Bell and the Dragon’). A printer’s blunder is corrected at Ps. 69:32 (‘seeke good’ becomes ‘seek God’), and what may also be a printer’s error, ‘the seale’ (2 Tim. 2:19), is changed to the reading of the previous translations, ‘this seal’. Three of the ‘corrections’ involve readings where the first edition is perhaps difficult but certainly, as the corrections in Bod 1602 show, deliberate. The translators struck through the Bishops’ Bible’s ‘ye’ at Mal. 4:2, producing ‘and shall goe foorth’; 1617 smoothes the English back to ‘and ye shall go forth’. Similarly making things easier, it changes ‘of this side Iordan’ to ‘on this side Iordan’ (Deut. 4:49), though the translators had deliberately used ‘of’, perhaps because of the absence of the preposition in the Hebrew. Thirdly, it slips an article into the Bishops’ Bible text where the translators chose to retain ‘and villages’ giving ‘and the 16 I have given a speculative account of the history of this reading in ‘Imagining Translation Committees at Work’. 80 A Textual History of the King James Bible villages’ (Josh. 13:23). The last of the six readings is ‘flee’ for ‘flie’ (Prov. 28:17), a spelling variation. Though the 1617 folio has minimal original editorial work, it may be important in a different way. It shows that, after six years, the text had reached a thoroughly mixed state where variations between the first and second editions are concerned. But this mixing is probably not random; rather, it suggests a degree of collation between the first and second editions that produced quite a few deliberately chosen readings. If the choices were made by a representative of the translators, or, better still, with reference to the original manuscript, they would have a real authority. However, there is no way of showing that either of these possibilities happened. Appendix 5 gives a selective collation of this edition’s readings with the first and second editions. It is constructed on the same principles as appendix 4, with the addition of instances where the 1617 folio follows readings found in some but not all copies of the second edition. A general scan of the list shows a much more even mix of first and second edition readings than was found in the 1613 folio. Nowhere is there a consistent stretch of readings from one or other of the first two editions as there was in 1613. The reproduction of errors, including some that are blatant, shows that the basic text was the second edition. Among these are ‘follow Deere’ for ‘fallowDeere’ (1 Kgs 4:23), ‘golden went’ for ‘gold went’ (2 Chr. 9:15), ‘heb.’ for ‘hab.’ (Ps. 27:14 m.), ‘there speares’ for ‘their speares’ (Isa. 2:4), ‘pices’ and ‘peace’ for ‘pieces’ and ‘piece’ (Ezek. 24:4), ‘and one the’ for ‘and on the’ (Ezek. 43:20), ‘and’ for ‘am’ (i.e. Amos, Joel 2:11 m.), ‘particulers’ (1 Esdras 5:9 m.), ‘hollowed’ for ‘hallowed’ (1 Macc. 4:48), ‘others’ for ‘othes’ (2 Macc. 4:34), and ‘he’ for ‘ye’ (Matt. 11:7). Against these, 1617 coincides with first-edition errors in giving ‘Iorden’ (Numbers 32 summary), ‘Or’ for ‘Or’ (2 Sam. 13:8 m.) and ‘Caiphas’ for ‘Caiaphas’ (Acts 4:6). The balance of errors strongly suggests the second edition was the base text, 17 but the presence of these few first-edition errors is mysterious. In several places distinctive second-edition readings or errors occur on the same page or folio as first-edition readings. On the verso from the egregious ‘pices’ and ‘peace’ (Ezek. 24:4) is the first edition’s reference, ‘Ier. 49’ (Ezek. 25:2 m.). In 1 Esdras 5 a choice of readings from the two editions together withanerror are foundonthe same page (Iudah, v. 5 m., particulers, 17 None of these coincidences can be traced to the inclusion of sheets from the previous editions. Avariation at Prov. 18:24 also seems to point to the second edition, some copies of which turn ‘a man that hath friends must shewe himselfe friendly’ into nonsense by substituting ‘but’ for ‘must’. 1617 reads, ‘will shewe’, which appears to be a sensible correction of this error, but a correction made without reference to the first edition. The King’s Printer at work, 1612 to 1617 81 v. 9 m., and Bezai, v. 16 m., all from the second edition; ‘Banuas’, v. 26, from the first edition). Such combinations of readings must go back to a copy of the second edition and notification, in some form, of errors of fact and variant readings, but not of mere typographical errors. In particular, ‘Ier. 49’ could not have appeared without the correct reference being supplied to the compositor. Such evidence makes it probable that most or all of the 1617 folio used the second edition as base text, but that a substantial though imperfect effort was made to correct that text with readings that come fromthe first edition. The result is a text that gives about two thirds of the first edition readings listed in appendix 2. Though one should not press the number hard (many of these readings would be natural corrections of second-edition errors), this situation is curious. Surely, one would argue, it would have been easier to have used the first edition as copy text: fewer changes would have been needed. And one would also argue that working fromthe first edition would have been sounder practice, and consistent with the way the early editions in smaller formats were created. The evidence clearly shows an awareness of the need to correct the second edition, but Barker’s workers may not have shared our sense that it would be sounder to work from the first edition. They may have thought that the second edition represented a corrected text, and not realised that working from it would involve them in more changes than if they had worked from the first edition. It is also possible that the use of the second edition may not represent a scholarly choice. By 1617 they may not have had a copy of the first edition available to work from, and so may have corrected the second edition from one of the interim editions. Conclusion The King’s Printer, in various combinations of Barker, Norton and Bill, printedmanymore editions, but there is nomore workof textual significance to note. By 1617 their text had reached some sort of stasis if not uniformity. Just as sheets of different editions were mixed, so too were readings. It is a tale of commercial enterprise that was not always competent, tempered with some limited scholarly attention to the text. The incompetence reached its apotheosis in the notorious ‘wicked Bible’, a 1631 octavo (H444) that omits ‘not’ fromthe seventhcommandment (Exod. 20:14). The error may possibly have been sabotage, Herbert suggests, ‘on the part of a partisan of Norton to discredit the Barkers’. If so, it is eloquent of the personal tensions and shortcomings that contributed to the many mysteries in the early text of the KJB. 5 Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 The first Cambridge edition, 1629 (H424) In 1534 Henry VIII granted a charter to Cambridge University licensing it to ‘assign, appoint and in perpetuity have among them . . . Three Station- ers and Printers or Sellers of Books’. These men were to ‘have lawful and incontestable power to print there all manner of books approved, or here- after to be approved, by the aforesaid Chancellor or his deputy and three doctors there’. 1 In keeping with this charter, John Legate, the second of the University’s printers, ventured into Bible printing in the 1590s (H207 and H208). 2 Occasional attempts on the lucrative Bible market continued. In November 1623 the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge was ‘willing to forgo the printing of the Bible in 8 ◦ and be content with 4 ◦ and 12 ◦ ’. 3 Though this is the earliest surviving reference to the University wanting to print the KJB, it implies earlier suits by its appearance of offering a compromise. 4 At this point the University may simply have been trying to establish its position, particularly inrelationto octavo Psalmbooks its printer, Cantrell Legge, had lately printed (Greg, pp. 64, 181). However, there is some reason to think that it had started work on or was contemplating a new edition of the KJB. The initial response was totally discouraging: inDecember the Privy Council forbad printing of the Bible by the University printer (Greg, pp. 65, 185), and there seems to have been no sign of a different attitude until the origi- nal charter granted by Henry VIII was confirmed in February 1628 (Greg, pp. 73, 193–4). It seems unlikely that work on a scholarly newedition would have been started in this period of just over four years when the prospect of a successful outcome was remote. Now, permission for Cambridge to print the Bible ‘in Quarto, and the Median Folio’ was granted in April 1629, by which time work on these volumes was ‘in hand’, which probably means that editorial revisionhadbeencompletedandprintingstarted(Greg, pp. 76, 204). As will be evident, a great deal of work – including a complete examination of the KJB against the original languages – went into the first 1 As translated in Black, p. 24. 2 See McKitterick, I, pp. 114–17; Greg, pp. 46–7, 148–51. 3 Greg, p. 64; see also p. 183. 4 Here I differ in one respect from McKitterick. He sees the reference to Bibles as a ‘sudden introduction’ of ‘a hitherto neglected topic’ which ‘adds further to the impression of a deliberately contrived sequence of attacks on the London privileges’ (I, p. 153). Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 83 Cambridge edition of 1629. Perhaps there was time for it in the fourteen months from February 1628 to April 1629, but it seems more likely that the work had begun before the end of 1623. Scholarly attention to, and dis- satisfaction with, the King’s Printer’s work may be of an earlier date than would ordinarily be inferred fromthe appearance of the Cambridge edition in 1629. Another motive probably contributed to the quality of the Bible issued by Thomas andJohnBuck, printers tothe University of Cambridge. Cambridge was making a claim to printing and editorial quality beyond anything their London rivals could produce. Part of this implicit claim was embodied in its conspicuously modern appearance. Roman type, by itself, was nothing new, but the use of u, v, J, and, occasionally, apostrophes was. 5 There was much commercial sense in establishing such claims, and one other aspect of this Bible shows both commercial intent and a better managed printing house than Barker’s. It was printed on seven different qualities of paper, so catering for a diverse market, and incidentally offering quite different senses of its quality as an artefact according to whether one examines an edition on the best or on the worst paper. 6 The editors made more changes to the text than any other set of editors. By my count (counts of this sort always have an element of roughness), they introduced 221 readings, of which 199 became standard. 7 In terms of 5 Apostrophes appear in the summary to 2 Samuel 20 (‘Sheba’s’), and at Rom. 4:19 (‘Sara’s’) – and perhaps elsewhere. 6 McMullin observes that this variety of issues ‘implies not only a complex organisation at the printing house – capable of working off and warehousing the seven issues – but also a much more diverse market than the personal/parish/private chapel trichotomy implied by other editions’ (McMullin, p. 395). 7 This and the following notes list references for the readings. The readings themselves can be found in the table of variants, appendix 8. Standard readings: Gen. 6:5; 36:14; 39:1; 47:18; Exod. 26:8; 35:29; 37:19; Lev. 10:14; 11:3; Num. 36:3; Deut. 5:29; 15:11 (end); 20:7; 26:1; Josh. 3:11; 7:26; 1 Sam. 6:7; 10:10; 18:1, 27; 25:16; 28:7; 2 Sam. 16:8, 12; 1 Kgs 3:12; 8:61; 15:19; 16:8; 22:2; 2 Kgs 8:19; 9:23; 13:24; 18:8; 20:17; 21:21; 22:2; 23:36; 24:13; 1 Chr. 2:18; 3:19; 11:15; 29:2; 2 Chr. 3:10; 13:6; 29:23; Neh. 3:5; 7:59; 8:10; Esther 1:8; 4:4; Ps. 2:4; 44 title; 62:10; 113:9; 139:7; Prov. 28:17; Eccles. 2:16; 8:17; Song 4:6; Isa. 6:8; 34:11; 47:6; 49:13; Jer. 4:6; 12:15; 25:30; 28:6; 31:14, 18; 42:16; 51:12, 30; Ezek. 12:19; 32:25; 34:31; 36:15; 43:27; 44:23; Dan. 1:12; 3:18; 6:13; Hos. 4:4; Joel 1:16; 3:13; Amos 9:5; Nahum 1:4; 3:17; 1 Esdras 2:9; 4:43; 5:37; 8:6; 2 Esdras 1:31; 2:18; 3:18, 27; 8:43; 13:12, 14; 14:15, 43, 47; 15:22, 41, 53; 16:28; Tobit 3:17; 5:15; 7:1; 8:10; Judith 7:7; 8:5, 6, 29; 14:10; 15:13; Wisdom1:5; 16:18, 29; Ecclus. 7:24; 11:10, 25; 17:23, 24; 23:27; 25:9; 27:5; 30:15; 32:1; 35:18; Baruch 4:2; 6:55; Song of Three 17; Bel 27; 1 Macc. 1:53; 2:70; 4:18; 5:26, 65; 6:5; 7:24; 8:4; 9:57; 10:25, 29, 52; 11:62; 15:22; 2 Macc. 1:10; 4:23, 50; 5:20; 9:4; 11:4 (twice), 9; 12:42; 15:3; Matt. 3:12; 27:22, 46; Mark 10:46; 14:36; 15:34; Luke 1:3; 3:21; 8:8; 18:9; John 5:18; 8:30; 11:3; Acts 8:32; 10:9; 24:4, 24, end; Rom. 4:19; 12:2; 14:6; 1 Cor. 12:28; 14:23; 15:41; 2 Cor. 11:32; Gal. 3:13; 5:15; Eph. 1:9; Phil. 4:6; Col. 1:21; 2 Thess. 2:14; 2 Tim. 4:8; Heb. 12:1; 1 Pet. 2:1, 5; 1 John 2:29; 3:17; 5:12; Rev. 13:6; 18:12; 21:20 (two words). 84 A Textual History of the King James Bible frequency, this is roughly one new reading every five chapters. They also confirmed a further 59 variants from the first edition found in some of the earlier editions. 8 The spelling of names is largely but not entirely a scholarly matter. They introduced 178 spellings, of which 157 have become standard, and they confirmed a further 34. 9 Overall, 493 changes were made, of which 447 (91%) became standard. The changes to names are generally straightforward and show clearly the kind of care the 1629 editors brought to their work. The translators had been Rejected readings: Exod. 23:23; 1 Kgs 3:4; Ps. 42:9; Prov. 10:23; Jer. 12:7; 34:16; Hab. 3:19; 1 Esdras 3:11; 9:48; Tobit 1:3 (etc.); Judith 1:1, 16; 2:21; Wisdom 18:9; Ecclus. 19:8; Baruch 6:8; 1 Macc. 9:68; 2 Macc. 1:36; 9:18; 1 Cor. 16:22; 2 Cor. 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:16. 8 Gen. 22:7; 31:1; Lev. 25:23; 26:40; Num. 24:6; Deut. 4:32, 49; 16:5; 28:42; Josh. 3:10; 7:14; 13:23; Ruth 3:15; 1 Kgs 13:11; 18:28; 2 Chr. 26:18; Ezra 3:5; 4:24; Job 39:30; Ps. 69:32; 143:9; Prov. 28:17; Song 5:12; Isa. 10:26; 49:20; Jer. 5:24; 35:13; 49:1; Ezek. 6:8; 23:23; 24:7; Dan. 5:31; Hos. 6:5; Mal. 2:2; 4:2; 1 Esdras 1:39; 2 Esdras 15:50; 16:52; Judith 16:24; Ecclus. 51:12; 1 Macc. 4:29; 10:45; 2 Macc. 3:12; Matt. 6:3; 16:19; Acts 4:17; Rom. 6:12; 7:2, 13; 1 Cor. 4:9; 7:32; 15:6; 2 Cor. 5:1, 20; Eph. 4:24; 6:24; 1 Tim. 6:11; 2 Tim. 2:19; 4:13. 9 In these lists subsequent references where the same change is made are given in brackets following the first occurrence. Standard spellings: Gen. 5:32 (6:10; 7:13); 9:18 (23, 27; 10:1, 2, 21); 10:19; 15:19; 26:1 (8, 14, 15, 18); Num. 21:24; Josh. 10:10 (11; 16:3, 5; 1 Sam. 13:18; 1 Chr. 7:24); 15:33, 38, 49, 57 (2 Chr. 13:2), 59; 16:6; 19:18, 22, 38, 42 (1 Chr. 6:69; 8:13; 2 Chr. 11:10), 44; 21:23 (two names), 31; Judg. 1:31; 21:19; 2 Sam. 3:26; 11:21; 23:32 (1 Chr. 11:33); 23:37; 1 Kgs 4:10; 9:11 (Isa. 9:1; Mark 15:41); 9:26 (22:48; 2 Chr. 8:17); 11:1, 5, 33; 15:5; 2 Kgs 12:19 (20); 18:18; 19:2; 20:1; 23:31; 24:19; 1 Chr. 1:9, 42; 2:10, 25; 3:3, 15 (16), 20, 22 (twice); 4:6, 13 (Ezra 2:2), 14, 20, 34, 35; 5:3, 8; 7:26 (9:4); 8:11; 9:12; 11:34, 45, 46; 23:23; 12:11 (2 Chr. 11:20); 14:7; 23:19; 24:20; 26:16; 27:20, 22, 27; 2Chr. 17:18; 11:20–22; 24:26; 25:23; 29:12; 31:14; 35:9; Ezra 2:40, 50; Neh. 3:15; 7:38, 54; 10:11; 12:21 (36), 36; Esther 1:9 (11, 12, 15–17, 19; 2:1, 4, 17), 14; Ps. 42:6; 53:6; 132:6; Jer. 26:18; 40:1; 52:31; Ezek. 23:23; 32:22; Micah 5:2; Haggai 1:1 (12, 14; 2:2, 4); 1 Esdras 1:6 (etc.), 9, 25 (2 Esdras 1:10; 1 Macc. 4:9; Acts 7:10, 13); 5:5 (two names), 19, 20, 31, 32, 33, 69; 8:2, 69; 9:21, 22, 23, 30, 31, 32, 34 (two names); 2 Esdras 2:10 (Matt. 2:1 etc.); Judith 1:1 (16; 2:21), 6; 2:28; Ecclus. 24:25; 47:4, 23; Bel 33 (34–5, 37, 39); 1 Macc. 1:18 (etc.); 8:17; 11:70; 12:19; 15:23; 2 Macc. 4:21; 12:15; 14:6, 16; Matt. 1:5 (twice), 9 (twice); 12:41; 14:34; Mark 12:26 (Luke 20:37); Luke 3:31, 35; 13:4; 24:18; John 1:45 (46–9; 21:2); Acts 6:5 (8; 7:59; 8:2; 11:19; 22:20); 6:5; 7:16; 27:5; Rom. 4:19 (9:9); 9:29; 2 Cor. subscription; Phil. 4:2; 1 Tim. subscription; Heb. 11:32 (two names); 1 Pet. 5:12; Rev. 7:7. Rejected spellings: Gen. 25:4; Josh. 13:18, 27; 2 Kgs 24:2 (Baruch 6:40); 1 Chr. 1:38; 2:49; 5:11; 7:1; 23:20; 24:11; Esther 3:1 (10); Amos 2:2; 1 Esdras 5:14 (8:39); 5:34; 2 Esdras 2:8; Tobit 1:3 (10, 17, 22; 7:3; 11:1, 16, 17); Judith 1:6; 5:9 (10, 16; Susannah 56); Judith 3:5 (etc.); 2 Macc. 4:30; 2 Pet. 2:6. Confirmed spellings: Gen. 10:14, 19; 37:36; Deut. 32:15 (33:5, 26); Josh. 12:11; 1 Chr. 3:2; 12:5, 7; 12:11 (2 Chr. 11:20); 15:18 (second); 2 Chr. 34:12; Ezra 4:9; Neh. 11:28; 1 Esdras 5:66; 2 Esdras 10:47; Tobit 4:12; Ecclus. 45:15 (etc.); 49:4, 8; 1 Macc. 5:9; 8:8; 9:35; 11:56; 11:70 (13:11); 15:23; 2 Macc. 4: 4; Matt. 20:29; Mark 12:26 (Luke 20:37); 16:7 (Luke 4:44); Luke 24:13; Acts 21:2; Rom. 16:10; 2 Cor. 1:19 (1 Pet. 5:12); Rev. 7:5. Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 85 instructed that ‘the names of the prophets, and the holy writers, with the other names in the text, [were] to be retained, as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used’ (rule 2). Usage was to override scholarly or pedan- tic respelling: the names were to be translated rather than transliterated. Though the translators perhaps did not sin greatly against vulgar usage, their treatment of names was inconsistent, and probably not helped by their printers. ‘Olofernes’ and ‘Holofernes’ in Judith sufficiently indicates their shortcomings in this matter. The 1629 editors evidently decided to try for consistency, and they judged that the less common names (arguably those to which vulgar usage was least applicable, if they attended to the translators’ rule) should be transliterated as part of the effort to make the translation more literal and scholarly. They begin with the translators’ inconsistent treatment of two of Noah’s sons. Bod 1602’s ‘Sem’ is left unannotated until Gen. 9:18, where h begins to be inserted, giving what is now the vulgar usage ‘Shem’. The 1629 editors regularisedthe earlier instances of ‘Sem’ to‘Shem’, upholdingthe translators’ later decision and conforming to the Hebrew. ‘Iapheth’, the 1602 spelling, is followed initially by the translators, then, beginning from Gen. 9:23, the h is deleted; the first edition, however, gives ‘Iaphet’ from v. 18 on. Here the 1629 editors regularised to the first form, ‘Japheth’ (1629 uses J), arguably the better representation of rÉ∏. Next they began their regularisation of another of the translators’ incon- sistencies, changing ‘Caldees’ to ‘Chaldees’ at Gen. 15:7; the translators had already let ‘Chaldees’ stand at 11:31, but here they deleted the h in Bod 1602. Later in the chapter, v. 19, the translators amended 1602’s ‘Kenezites’ to ‘Kenizites’ (here the annotation in Bod 1602 is unclear). The 1629 editors, noting that the zayinis doubledinthe Hebrew, further amendto‘Kenizzites’. Now, these last two changes make no difference to the sound of the names: nearly one third of the spellings are of this sort, enhancing scholarly purity of the text but, one might suggest, making no practical difference to the reading. And so the work goes on, almost always increasing consistency and orthographical correctness. Total consistency is not achieved, and occa- sionally the editors appear to make mistakes, for example ‘Abidah’ for the translators’ correct ‘Abida’ (:E>3; Gen. 25: 4), or the opposite error, ‘Jahaza’ for ‘Iahazah’ (¬≤¬“ ∂; Josh. 13:18). Even so, acceptance of 88%of their changes to names shows how accurately they worked; it also shows that later editors agreed with the principles on which they worked. The result is that, even if the spellings did not represent vulgar usage in their time, through long acceptance they have become the spelling vulgarly used. Considerationof the textual changes may usefully beginwithsome excep- tions. Only once do the 1629 editors allow themselves to rewrite. Job 4:6 in the first edition has a reading that was created in Bod 1602: ‘is not this thy 86 A Textual History of the King James Bible feare, thy confidence; the vprightnesse of thy wayes and thy hope?’ This is glossing rather thantranslationof a difficult verse: it gives the Hebrewwords just as they come without making sense. By omitting ‘this’ and moving ‘and’, the editors make sense: ‘is not thy fear, thy confidence; and the uprightnesse of thy wayes, thy hope?’ To paraphrase: did you not trust in your piety and your moral perfection? The significance of this lies in its uniqueness: the 1629 editors rarely make the text less literal, and nowhere else do they pre- sume to rewrite. The small licence they took here led to further licence: the second Cambridge edition created the received reading by restoring ‘this’ and changing the order of the last part of the sentence (see appendix 8). Perhaps if the 1629 editors had allowed themselves such licence on a regular basis, the later history of the KJB text would have been different. The other exceptions, of which I note only five, involve restoring a deliberately deleted ‘and’ (even putting it in italics to show that it is not in the Hebrew, Ps. 113:9), and reversing the order of subject and verb: ‘I saide’ becomes ‘said I’ (Isa. 6:8, and similarly at 2 Esdras 2:18 and 1 Macc. 10:29), while ‘saw I’ becomes ‘I saw’ (2Esdras 13:12). Beyondthese, theeditors left matters of style alone. Typically the textual changes deal with perceived inaccuracies in the work of thetranslators rather thanprinter’s errors. 10 Theyinauguratetheprincipal effort madebysuccessiveeditors throughintothis century, theeffort torefine the KJB as a translation. Usually this refinement is a matter of making the KJBa still more literal representation of the originals: the editors test the text against the original languages and make changes where they judge that the translators were loose in their treatment of the originals. In doing this they treat the translators’ work as improvable, and take licence to know better than them how their work should read. Now, the translators might have agreed that their work was not perfect, and they might also have assented to some, even many, of the changes, but there is evidence that they rejected some of the readings that their editors decided were better. It is worth noting in passing what these changes collectively show about the work of the translators: almost all of themare lessons in the small degree of licence the translators allowed themselves to vary fromliteralness in their work. Now, the KJB translators’ work has sometimes been denigrated as over-literal. David Daniell, for instance, makes many telling comparisons between Tyndale and the KJB. For Tyndale, he argues, an English translation of the Bible had to be as accurate to the original languages, Greek and Hebrew, as scholarship could make it; and it had to make sense. There are times when the original Greek, and for good reason even more the Hebrew, are 10 A notable example of detection of a hidden error comes at 1 Kgs 8:61 where the Bod 1602 scribe failed to correct 1602’s typographical error, ‘your God’, to ‘our God’. Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 87 baffling. Aweak translator goes for paraphrase, or worse, for philological purity, and hang the sense (as the Authorised Version did often with the Prophets, for example, in those books lacking Tyndale as a base). (Daniell, p. 2) Daniell might well have citedJob4:6, but what these examples typically show is the KJB translators’ adherence, however muted, to Tyndale’s example of combining accuracy with clarity. From1629 on editors pushed the quest for ‘philological purity’ beyond what the translators deemed fit. The commonest changes inthe first Cambridge editiongive a goodidea of its attention to literal accuracy. Thirty of the 199 readings that have become standard involve changes of number, and a further fifteen involve the sub- stitution of a possessive pronoun for the definite article; moreover, most of the spellings of names involve closer attention to their exact spelling in the originals. Rather than merely illustrating some typical changes, it will be more useful to take examples that bear on the question of whether the translators would have approved of all of them. Here the annotations in Bod 1602 are crucial because, where they coincide with first-edition readings, they increase the probability that those readings are the intended result of close consideration. Inferences from annotations that do not correspond to the first edition are less certain: further thought may have taken place or an error of transmission may have been made. Similarly, inferences from coincidences with the 1602 text are ambiguous: where these occur in the first edition and come from parts of Bod 1602 that were annotated, they probably indicate the translators’ considered approval, but may rep- resent an oversight. And where the 1629 edition agrees with 1602 against the first edition, it is likely but not certain that the translators rejected the reading. Fourteen of the thirty literal changes that 1629 made to number come in parts of the OT that are annotated in Bod 1602. Five of these fourteen have annotations that create the first edition reading and so confirm that the translators decided against the more literal reading that the 1629 editors judged correct. Three examples will be useful not just for indicating the nature of the 1629 work, but also for the kind of problem there may be with it. 11 At Song 4:6, the translators struck through 1602’s ‘to the mountaine of Myrrhe’ and substituted ‘to the mountaines of Myrrhe’. One might wonder why they worked this way when a simple insertion of s would have sufficed: perhaps they contemplated a more substantial change and then decided against it and, intending to reinstate the 1602 reading, accidentally changed it. This is possible, but there are other instances of the annotations taking a long way to make a small change, and it is rare for a reading to be deleted and then the same reading written in. Yet ‘mountaines’ does look like an 11 The other two examples are Lev. 10:14 and 2 Kgs 18:8. 88 A Textual History of the King James Bible error: the Hebrew is singular, as is the Greek of the Septuagint, the Latin of the Vulgate and the English of the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles; moreover, the parallelismworks better with a singular, for a singular ‘hill’ follows (also singular in the Hebrew). Consequently the first edition’s ‘I will get mee to the mountaines of myrrhe, and to the hill of frankincense’ seems wrong on two counts, and the 1629 restoration of the 1602 reading absolutely right. At 1 Sam. 28:7, where 1602 reads, ‘and his seruants sayd’, the translators deleted the s: ‘and his seruant said’. By contrast with the previous example, there is no question but that this is a rejection of the literal sense of E;≈ ¬u4©. The reason seems straightforward: whereas Saul spoke to his servants collectively, the translators judged that they did not reply in chorus but that the natural understanding of the actionis that one servant replied: ‘thensaid Saul vnto his seruants, Seeke me a woman that hath a familiar spirit, that I maygoe toher, andenquire of her. Andhis seruant saidtohim, Beholde, there is a womanthat hatha familiar spirit at Endor.’ The 1629 editors restoredthe 1602 reading, ‘correcting’ the translators but going against their favoured reading. At 2 Kgs 21:21 the translators inserted an s after ‘way’, making 1602’s literal ‘walked in all the way’ into more natural English: ‘and he walked in all the wayes that his father walked in’. 1629 agreed with 1602, but a problem arises. ‘To walk in the way or ways of’ is a common OT idiom; the Hebrew uses both singular and plural but the translators sometimes, as here, give a plural for the Hebrew singular. It would be possible throughout to conform the English exactly to the Hebrew, as the 1629 editors did here, but they left some instances untouched, withthe result that the text remains inconsistent, though not quite as inconsistent as the translators left it. If it was easy to agree with 1629’s restoration of ‘mountain’, and easy to sympathise with its restoration of ‘servant’, it is difficult to agree with the restoration of ‘way’. This is the nub of the problem. Though one may agree with some of the changes made by later editors in the quest for greater accuracy (Daniell’s ‘philological purity’), others, for various reasons, are more dubious, and this calls into question every instance where a deliberate decision of the translators is rejected. And, once printer’s errors are set aside, there is little in the first edition of which one can say with any certainty that it does not represent a deliberate decision. The three examples just discussed may stand as typical of the work of the 1629 editors. The reader who wishes to go further should browse in appendix 8, perhaps beginning with the three instances where the editors restored a possessive pronoun that the translators replaced with a definite article as they annotated Bod 1602, Deut. 15:11 (end), Joel 3:13 and Nahum 3:17. In the course of this browsing, occasional examples will be found that appear to run counter to the picture I have just given: sometimes (e.g. Lev. 11:3, 1 Kgs 15:19 and Jer. 4:6) the 1629 editors change the text to readings Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 89 found in the Bod 1602 annotations, and sometimes, perhaps showing the human inconsistency that is almost impossible to escape, they make the translation less literal (e.g. Gen. 39:1). The coincidences with annotations that the first edition did not follow are subject to the same argument made when discussing Bod 1602: the translators may have had further thoughts which the first edition incorporates, so we cannot be certain that the 1629 editors are following their final intentions, even though this seems likely in some cases. The second Cambridge edition, 1638 (H520) ‘Humble proposals concerning the printing of the Bible’, which I take to be the work of the pamphleteer William Kilburne, noted that ‘the Bible was never better printed than by Mr Buck and Mr Daniel at Cambridg’. 12 Shortly afterwards Kilburne publicly described Buck and Daniel’s 1638 edi- tion in more audacious terms, as ‘the Authentique corrected Cambridge Bible, revised Mandato Regio, by the learned Doctor Ward, Doctor Goad of Hadley, Mr. Boyse, Mr Mead, &c. and printed by the elaborate industry of Thomas BuckEsquire, andMr. Roger Daniel’. 13 Kilburneis not always reliable: ‘authentique’, presumably meaning perfect and authoritative, may well be his own description, and ‘revised Mandato Regio’ cannot be confirmed; 14 if he did not know the 1638 edition was authorised, he certainly believed it ought to have been and should be taken as authoritative. In practice, it did become authoritative for over a century: it was ‘the standard text until the publication of Dr Paris’ Cambridge edition of 1762’ (Herbert, p. 176). Scrivener, taking the 1629 and 1638 editions together, observes that the first inaugurated that course of systematic revision of the text, of the italics, and of the margin, which nine years afterwards was more fully and consistently carried out . . . The task seems to have been executed between the two sets of editors in no unequal shares. What the one party left undone, by reason of haste or human oversight, the 12 Cambridge University Archives, CUR 33.6 (25); as given in McKitterick, I, p. 388. One passage in the ‘Proposals’ closely resembles pp. 3–5 of Kilburne’s Dangerous Errors, and ‘By W m . Kilburne’ is found at the end of the very similar ‘Proposals . . . concerning the Future printing of Bibles in English’ (Cambridge University Archives, CUR33.6 [24]; McKitterick, I, pp. 389–91). Thomas Fuller, probably referring to the 1638 edition – he calls it simply ‘the Cambridge bible’ – writes that there is ‘none exacter or truer edition in England’ (p. 127). 13 Kilburne, p. 6. The same names of editors are given in a manuscript note to a copy in Jesus College (Scrivener, p. 22). This may be Kilburne’s source rather thanindependent evidence. Goad is Thomas Goad, ‘Mead’ Joseph Mede (McKitterick, I, p. 197). 14 Scrivener, not unreasonably given the vagueness and lack of corroboration, found Kilburne’s description opaque, p. 22 n. 90 A Textual History of the King James Bible others in a good measure supplied, by inserting words or clauses, especially in the Old Testament, overlooked by the editors of 1611; by amending manifest errors; by rendering the italic notation at once more self-consistent and more agreeable to the design of the original Translators . . . (Scrivener, pp. 21–2) This is a fair summary of the combined work, and the point that these editions worked on the italics and margin needs underlining: for the time being I concentrate on the text, but it is important to note that any work on the italics involves close attention to the originals to determine just which words in the translation have no direct equivalent in the original language, and that the marginalso required a great deal of scholarly time and attention for its development. Scrivener’s suggestion that at least one of the named editors must have been involved in both editions seems probable (p. 22): though the 1638 editors sometimes disagree with their predecessors and sometimes direct their attention to new aspects of the text, their work is largely of the same sort. Two of the editors named, Bois and Ward, had been among the original translators, a circumstance that might be taken as giving extra authority to this Cambridge work. In one way this might make the 1638 edition the equivalent of anauthor’s ownrevisionof his work: this might well be implied by Kilburne’s adjective ‘authentique’. Or, one might suppose, they brought to the revision knowledge of what had originally been intended at various points. The latter supposition might have a small degree of truth but is of no practical help in judging the worth of individual readings. Rather, one should remember what the evidence from the 1629 edition has already shown, that these Cambridge editions worked ona subtly different principle fromthat of the original translators, namely, that wherever minimal changes are possible to align the text more literally with the originals, they should be made. The result is a still more consistent, more literal text. Perhaps it is a better text, but perhaps not, for it is not the text the translators deliberately created. Surveying the work statistically, the 1638 editors supplied 121 readings and 114 spellings of names that became standard. 15 Only a fewof these have 15 Standard readings: Gen. 8:13; 19:21; 23:18; 39:16; Exod. 15:25; 21:32; 35:11; Lev. 1:8, 9; 2:4; 19:34; 20:11; 22:10; 23:20, 22; 25:6; 26:23; Num. 6:14; Deut. 28:23; Josh. 3:15; 11:17; 12:2; 13:29; Judg. 14:17; 1 Sam. 10:23; 20:5; 2 Sam. 6:12; 1 Kgs 9:11; 13:6; 2 Kgs 11:10; 15:15; 20:13; 23:21; 1 Chr. 7:5; 26:18 init.; 2 Chr. 6:27; 28:11, 22; 31:6; 32:20; Ezra 2:22; Neh. 2:12; 9:17; Job 4:6; 33:22; 41:5; Ps. 42:9; 105:30; 119:101; Prov. 7:21; 10:23; 27:26; Eccles. 1:5; Song 8:1; Isa. 49:13; 57:8; Jer. 23:30; 38:16; 40:5; 51:27; Ezek. 3:11; 5:1; 18:1; 24:5; 26:14; 39:11; 42:17; 46:23; 48:8; Dan. 2:27; 3:15; 12:13; Hos. 13:3; Amos 8:3; Zech. 7:7; 11:2; Mal. 3:4; 2 Esdras 4:47; 7:68; 16:26, 30; Tobit 13:18; Wisdom 18:18; Ecclus. 35:15; Song of Three title and 1; Susannah title; 2 Macc. 1:36; 4:21; 11:21; Apocrypha colophon; Matt. 5:22; 12:23; Mark 5:6; 10:18; 11:8; Luke 17:34; 23:11; John 21:17; Acts 2:22; 27:18; Rom. 14:10; 1 Cor. 14:10, 15; 15:48; 2 Cor. Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 91 been rejected by later editors. 16 One further reading used to be thought to have been a deliberate manipulation of the text to favour the Puritans but is nowgenerally reckoned a printer’s error, ‘whomye may appoint’ for ‘whom we may appoint (Acts 6:3). 17 If we combine these figures with those for 1629, the early Cambridge editors supplied some 591 standard readings and spellings; 60% came from 1629. By comparison with 1629, 1638 is still more concerned with scholarly niceties. Well over 40% of the changes to names have no effect on sound. The most frequent emendations deal with whether or not a name should end with h, something the translators had not been very particular over. 1611 gave, in quick succession, ‘Haroe’, ‘Salmah’ and ‘Noga’ (1 Chr. 2:52, 54; 3:7). Each is wrong by the Hebrew: 1638 corrects to ‘Haroeh’, ‘Salma’ and ‘Nogah’. Such punctiliousness (a word sometimes literally applicable) also characterises the changes to the readings. Most commonly an omission is made good. While most of these omissions involve 1602 readings that the translators let stand, occasionally they are the deliberate creation of the Bod 1602 annotator. At Ezek. 3:11 they struck through ‘the children of’ in the phrase ‘the children of thy people’, deliberately rejecting literal translation: they judged that ‘get thee to them of the captivity, unto the children of thy people, andspeak untothem’ wouldbe misleading toEnglishreaders, falsely implying that Ezekiel was not to speak to all the people. The 1638 editors judged the English by the Hebrew (¸N¡ qŒ¬0) and restored 1602’s phrase. One might say fromsuchexamples that the Cambridge editions brought a degree of pedantry tothe text that the translators resisted. Yet the very nature 8:21; 9:5, 6; 1 Tim. 1:4; 2 Tim. 1:7; Heb. 3:10; 8:8; 11:23; James 5:2; 1 Pet. 2:6; 5:10; 1 John 2:16; Jude 25; Rev. 1:4, 11; 5:13. Standard spellings: Gen. 16:14 (20:1); Num. 7:48 (53; 10:22), 54 (59; 10:23); Deut. 32:15; Josh. 15:28 (19:3; Neh. 11:27); 15:42, 43, 50; 19:19; 21:11; 2 Kgs 19:37 (Isa. 37:38); 23:13; 1 Chr. 1:25, 33, 42, 44; 2:14 (15:24; 24:6), 27; 42 (2 Chr. 11:8), 48 (9:35; 11:43), 52, 54; 3:7 (14:6); 4:6, 7, 29, 35, 37; 6:40 (two names), 57; 7:18, 25, 32; 8:14 (25:22); 8:31, 36, 37; 9:44; 12:5, 6, 10, 20; 15:18 (20, 24; 16:5; 2 Chr. 35:8; Neh. 12:41), 18, 18 (20; 2 Chr. 23:1; 26:11; 34:8; Ezra 10:18, 21, 22, 30), 18 (21), 18, 21; 25:4; 27:6, 29, 33 (34); 2 Chr. 11:8; 20:14 (29:13; 35:9; Ezra 8:13; 10:43); 25:1; 29:12; 36:17 (etc.); Ezra 7:4; 8:16; 10:23, 25, 33; Neh. 3:4 (21; 10:5; 12:3), 6, 12; 7:7, 31, 46; 10:18; 11:8, 13; 12:5; Esther 3:1 (10); Ps. 2:6 (etc.); Jer. 41:1; Ezek. 1:2; 27:22 (23); 1 Esdras 1:8; 2 Esdras 3:16 (twice); Tobit 1:2 (Judith 1:8; 15:5; 1 Macc. 10:30; 12:47, 49; Mark 15:41; 16:7; Luke 4:44; Acts 13:31), 3 (10, 17, 22; 7:3; 11:1, 16, 17; 14:4, 8, 10, 15 [twice]; Judith 1:1, 16; 2:21); 7:3 (Matt. 4:13, 15; Rev. 7:6); Judith 1:8 (7:3); 2:4 (etc.); 5:3 (1 Macc. 9:37); 5:16; 7:18; 15:4, 5; Rest of Esther 11:1 (etc.); Ecclus. 48:12; 49:4; Baruch 3:23; 1 Macc. 2:26 (54); 6:1; 7:45; 11:34; 15:23 (two names); 2 Macc. 4:30; 8:33; Mark 14:32; Luke 1:5 (7, 13, 24, 36, 40, 41 [twice], 57); 4:27; 7:11; Acts 7:16 (twice); 21:1; 24:27; 27:7; 1 Cor. 1:12 (etc.); Heb. 11:4; 2 Pet. 2:6. 16 Rejected readings: Mark 10:46; John 10:29; 14:16; 1 Cor. 10:28. Rejected spellings: 2 Sam. 5:14; 1 Chr. 2:49; 2 Chr. 20:36; Neh. 7:30; 1 Macc. 9:37; Rev. 2:6 (15). 17 Scrivener, p. 4, Herbert, p. 176. 92 A Textual History of the King James Bible of the Bible text seems todemandthis. Jerome changedhis preferredpractice as a translator when he worked on the sacred text, as he noted in a letter: ‘I myself not only admit but freely claim that when I translate the Greeks, except for the Holy Scriptures, where eventhe order of the words is a mystery, I do so not word for word but sense for sense’. 18 The same consciousness of sacred mystery in the very letters of the text was vehemently reiterated by Kilburne: And what accurate diligence and venerable respect the antient Jews did use . . . in accounting the number of words, Syllables, nay Letters thereof: And also the sedulity of Christians since the death of Christ . . . to convey fromage to age the Testament of our blessed Saviour, and Writings and Epistles of his Holy Apostles in their purity, (whereby they have been by Gods providence preserved from corruption,) should incite, and invite us, (who have received a greater Illumination, and Revelation, than the Iews, or Primitive Christians,) carefully to promulge and propagate the word of God in its intrinsecal virtue, and propriety; Considering the many Heresies and false Doctrines professed in our dayes . . . And when as also in the Primitive times one ic:c, (the least Letter of the Alphabet) occasioned so great a controversie in Gods Church, under the Empire of Constantine the Great. For in the doctrine of the ever-blessed Trinity, in the debates of the Nicene Councel, Athanasius, and the Orthodox party held, that Christ was Ouccúoic,, and of the same Essence of God his Father; the Arians, and Heterodox, Oucicúoic,, making him a meer Creature, and depriving him of his royall Diadem of the eternall Divinity; Which two words differ but in one Letter. 19 And we read Iudges 12. 6. that the Gileadites slew of the Ephraimites 42000 souls, for not pronouncing rightly Shibboleth, and missing but in one Aspiration. (Kilburne, pp. 3–5) Bible translation was of necessity a pedantic matter, and so viewed by subse- quent editors who, withfewexceptions, approvedthe workof the Cambridge editors. One man’s pedantry is another man’s fidelity, and it should never be forgotten that there were genuine problems in the first edition text that the Cambridge editors contributed greatly to remedying. Scrivener notes that ‘with this pair of editions began the habit of adding to the parallel textual references in the margin’, and that 1638 ‘admits also one or two fresh marginal notes (1 Macc. iv. 15; ix. 36)’. He also notes ‘much attention’ tothe use of italics, andlists some errors, ‘most of whichblemishes have been perpetuated to modern times’. 20 18 Letter 57:5; as given in Norton, History, I, p. 34; for a discussion of Jerome and principles of translation, see pp. 33–7. 19 Ouccúoicv, ‘of one substance’ is used in the Nicene Creed, rather than cucicúoicv, ‘of like substance’, the term preferred by the Arians. 20 Scrivener, pp. 22–3. He identifies the following as errors (some are probably deliberate, e.g. ‘Jezabel’, Rev. 2:20, where the Greek spelling is followed): 1629: ‘staies’ for ‘staires’, 2 Chr. 9:11m.; ‘whom he had set’ for ‘whom ye . . .’ (Jer. 34:16), ‘their trees ’ for ‘ their trees’ (Ezek. 31:14), ‘those that failed’ for ‘those that fail’ Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 93 Spelling in the Cambridge editions The problem of the spelling of the Bible was not raised until, roughly, 1660, when a standard copy of the KJB was proposed that should be ‘for Orthog- raphy so truely and critically written, that hereafter a Letter shall not bee altered’. 21 This does not signal the arrival of the idea that there was – or should be – standard English spelling; rather, it harks back to Jewish care to keep the Hebrew text pure: ‘the Jews were so accurate, that they knew the number of words, syllables, nay letters in every book: whose diligence and industry in that kinde God’s Providence hath used as a means to keep the Scriptures from corruption’. 22 Occasionally the number of letters in the KJB has been a matter of curiosity, 23 but in general the spelling of the KJB has followed, tardily, the progressive standardisation of English (and Amer- ican) spelling. The tardiness comes largely from conservative reverence for the text, with the result that, into the twenty-first century, inconsistencies and old-fashioned spellings remain. Through the first century and a half of the life of the KJB text all one can observe is fitful movement towards modern spelling and consistency of spelling. Some examples from the Cambridge editions will be enough to showthat theyconstitutedonlya small steptowards the modernandthe con- sistent. The first edition did not distinguish between ‘naught’ and ‘nought’, but the 1638 editors did, using ‘naught’ where there is an implication of evil or naughtiness, ‘nought’ where the implication is nothingness. At 2 Kgs 2:19 they substitute ‘naught’ in ‘the water is nought, and the ground barren’, bringing out the Hebrew c»ë, ‘bad, evil’. 24 Conversely, ‘set him at naught’ (Luke 23:11) becomes ‘set him at nought’, reflecting t¸cuûtvnoc, ot co:cv, ‘made him as nothing, humiliated him’. These changes are unique among the 1629 and 1638 spellings in the way they are dictated by the original. (Ecclus. 17:24), ‘the letters’ for ‘the letter’ (2 Macc. 9:18), ‘Hydaspe’ for ‘Hydaspes’ (Judith 1:6), ‘gold’ for silver’ (Baruch 6:8), ‘in utterance’ for ‘and utterance’ (2 Cor. 8:7), ‘thy doctrine’ for ‘the doctrine’ (1 Tim. 4:16), and reference to Ps. 22:6 placed by first occurrence of ‘worm’, not second (Job 25:6). 1638: ‘Sebaniah’ (=1611) for ‘Shebaniah’ (1629; Neh. 12:3m.), ‘Theword’ for ‘Andtheword’ (Ezek. 18:1), ‘the whirlwind’ for ‘a whirlwind’ (Hos. 13:3), ‘whom ye may appoint’ for ‘whom we . . .’ (Acts 6:3), and ‘Jezabel’ for ‘Jezebel’ Rev. 2:20. Errors in italics followed by later editions ‘all these are merely uncorrected errata’: 1629: ‘do it’ (2 Sam. 24:12), ‘art thou brought’ (Ezek. 40:4), ‘is a vow’ (1 Esdras 8:58) and ‘cleanse it’ (Eph. 5:26). 1638: ‘This is’ (Isa. 5:9m.), ‘were torn’ (Isa. 5:25), ‘from the thrumme’ (Isa. 38:12m.), ‘and the princes’ (Jer. 25:18), ‘and bay’ (Zech. 6:3) and ‘for doctrines’ (Matt. 15:9). 21 ‘Humble proposals’; McKitterick, I, p. 388. 22 Part of the conclusion to the point; the connection with the passage fromDangerous Errors just given is obvious. 23 See Norton, II, pp. 49–50. 24 The same change was made at Prov. 20:14 in 1616. 94 A Textual History of the King James Bible A few words are consistently given modern spelling, as in 1629’s regu- larisation of ‘burden/burthen’ and ‘murder/murther’. The complexities of ‘entreat . . . /intreat . . .’ (a continuing problem) are more expressive of the times. The first edition uses ‘intreat . . .’ fifty-nine times, and ‘entreat . . .’ twenty-nine. 1629 changes ‘entreat . . .’ to ‘intreat . . .’ nine times, and makes the reverse change thirteen times. There seems to be an attempt in this to keep spellings consistent where the variants are near each other, but overall I suspect there is a tendency to change simply because neither spelling seems exactly right: where something seems slightly wrong, a change feels like a correction. 1638 follows 1629, except for making one more change of each sort, so adding to the sense of confusion. 25 Finally, a few archaic words are given a new form. ‘Broided’ becomes ‘broidred’ (1 Tim. 2:9), ‘happily’ ‘haply (2 Cor. 9:4), ‘sithence’ ‘since’ (2 Esdras 10:14), and, from 1638, ‘astrologians’ becomes ‘astrologers’ (Dan. 2:27). Such changes run a fine line between changes of spelling and changes to the translators’ English. Commercial competition and corruptions Black, with feeling proper to one who was himself University Publisher, reports a story ‘that Buck and Daniel in their pride [in the 1638 edition] put a notice on Great St Mary’s door offering a free Bible to anyone who could find an error’. 26 The first two Cambridge folios were indeed remarkably well printed, quite outdoing the best efforts of the Kings’ Printer. This was in a real sense a commercial move. Black acknowledges that the story of Buck and Daniel’s offer is probably apocryphal, but adds that ‘Cambridge still had cause for pride, for it had inaugurated the tradition of care for the text which only the two universities maintained, and which was to be always the strongest argument for their exemptionfromthe monopoly conferredby the Royal Printer’s Patent’. In due course Bible printing became a prime source of income for both Oxford and Cambridge University presses, subsidising many unprofitable but important ventures without which English culture would have been the poorer. 27 25 ‘Entreat . . .’ to ‘intreat . . .’: 1629: Exod. 8:9; 9:28; Judg. 13:8; Prov. 19:6; Tobit 1:22; Wisdom 19:3; 2 Cor. 8:4; Phil. 4:3; Heb. 12:19; 1638: 2 Sam. 21:14. ‘Intreat . . .’ to ‘entreat . . .’: 1629: 2 Chr. 33:13, 19; Ezra 8:23; Job 19:16; 24:21; Jer. 15:11; Judith 10:16; Ecclus. 33:31; 1 Macc. 12:8; Matt. 22:6; Luke 18:32; Acts 7:6, 19; 1638: Deut. 26:6. 26 Black, p. 64. Scrivener notes five errors: ‘Sebaniah’ for ‘Shebaniah’ (1629’s correction of 1611, Neh. 12:3m.), ‘The word’ for ‘And the word’ (Ezek. 18:1), ‘the whirlwind’ for ‘a whirlwind’ (Hos. 13:3), Acts 6:3 (see above) and ‘Jezabel’ for ‘Jezebel’ (Rev. 2:20). 27 ‘By the mid-seventeenth century [the Bible] had become one of the [Cambridge] Press’s mainstays, and it has remained the most important single component of the Press’s list for Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 95 In other hands, often ill-managed and ill-executed, it also made money. Kilburne, in his ‘Proposals humbly presented’, makes much of the commer- cial possibilities and dangers. He claims that printers ‘may gain by printing Bibles in all Volumes 10000.l. per annum de claro’ (McKitterick, I, p. 389), a fabulous profit. Kilburne makes various suggestions for controlling this work, for the profit motive would most likely produce a result quite con- trary to that achieved by Cambridge. He argues that no group such as the Stationers’ Company should have any Interest, or Title in the Copy of the Bible, or any propriety in the printing thereof: For if they, or any of them, have liberty to manage any Printery, they will expose tosale nobooks, but of their ownprinting: Andthereby(havingthe advantage of a powerful purse) will debilitate, and discourage all others, that print never so well. And in truth (if a book will but sell well (as Bibles are the most certain) let the printing be never so bad) they look no further. (McKitterick, I, pp. 389–90) On the heels of poorly printed texts would come the demise of quality printers and a rise in cost to the public through monopoly pricing. High prices and poor printing were a common complaint. Archbishop Abbott, who had been one of the translators, early lamented the declining standards: I knewe the tyme when greater care was had about printeing, the Bibles especiallie, good compositors and the best correctors were gotten being grave and learned men, and the paper and letter rare and faire every way of the best; but now the paper is naught, the composers boyes, and the correctors unlearned: There is a farmer [monopolist] and he makes the benefitt, and careth for nothing about it. They heertofore spent their whole time in printeing, but these looke to gaine, gaine, gaine, nothing els. 28 A bookseller, Michael Sparke, gives details of inflated prices in a 1641 tract, Scintilla (reproduced in Herbert, pp. 183–7). Some twenty years after Buck and Daniel’s vaunted edition, Kilburne himself gives liberal details of errors (see appendix 6). The most notorious was, of course, the omissionof ‘not’ fromthe seventhcommandment (Exod. 20:14) inthe ‘wicked’ Bible of 1631, anomissiongenerally takentohave been sabotage perpetrated as part of the ongoing struggles between Barker and Norton, though it could be a compositor’s jape of the same sort as ‘printers most of the three and a half centuries since. Its importance as the generator of profits that could in turn be used to subsidize less widely popular books can hardly be over-estimated’ (McKitterick, I, p. 195). 28 Gardiner, Reports of cases; High Commission cases, p. 305; as given in McKitterick, I, p. 197. For a similar view from Laud and an opposing one from Fuller, see Norton, I, p. 212 and n. 96 A Textual History of the King James Bible have persecuted me’. 29 Kilburne reports a similar omission: a pocket Bible of 1653 reads, ‘knowye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the Kingdome of God?’ (1 Cor. 6:9), an error that I find easier to think of as an accident. 30 A further twenty years on, nothing seems to have changed. Oxford Uni- versity Press defendedits 1679 quarto(H744) against a petitionby the King’s Printers (now John Bill, Thomas Newcombe and Henry Hills) by turning the attack on them: As to the Correctednesse, That was done in that Bible which has scarcely bin done in any other. The escapes of the Presse being in all Coppies corrected with the penn The latter Editions are more correct then any of the Kings Printers. The Kings Printers Bible in octavo printed in the year 1671 is soe full of errors that it hath bin complained of by many persons, To instance in one place, Ahitophell sett his shoulder in order &hanged himself [2 Sam. 17:23], By their monopoly Persons are necessitated to take them (Hobsons Choice) or none, By their monopoly the nation is abused as to bad Comodity and att an enhanced Price, The vniversity Printer sells a better bible for 5 s 9 d . then the Kings Printer did for 8 s . 8 d . vide the books., soe that if the vniversity bee encouraged they will bring downe the Price of small bibles also and print better, and hereby the Kings Customs will be advantaged and Importation of Holland Bibles discouraged as before is noted. 31 Like Ahithophel, the King’s printer shouldhave ‘put his householdinorder’. A standard – or a new revision? The same advertisement that vaunted Field and Hills’s possession of the translators’ original also made much of the effort to set a standard by ‘his Highness’s printers’ (as theystyledthemselves under Cromwell). 32 Inagrand example of the pot callingthe kettle black, FieldandHills observe that ‘for the space of about Twelve years past, the Printing of the Bible lay in Common’, with the result ‘that many Hundreds of very gross Errors are escaped in 29 The edition was burnt and the printers fined £300 (not the £2,000 or £3,000 Kilburne, too often dependent on rumour, reports, p. 5). Scrivener noted that ‘a single copy is said to survive in the Library at Wolfenbuttel’ (p. 25 n.), but there is a copy in the Bible Society Library. When I opened this at the offending page a loud crack of thunder erupted outside. 30 Kilburne, p. 7. He comments that ‘this is the foundation of a damnable Doctrine: for it hath been averred by a reverend Doctor of Divinity to several worthy persons, that many Libertines and licentious people did produce, and urge this Text from the authority of this corrupt Bible against his mild Reproofs, in justification of their vicious and inordi- nate Conversations’. Addison later supposed, sarcastically, that the youth of his age had found copies of the ‘wicked’ Bible and were following it to the letter (The Spectator, 579; Wednesday, 11 August 1714). 31 Oxford University Archives, 1680, S. E. P. P. 16(2); as given in Simpson, pp. 178–9. 32 For the phrase, ‘his Highness’s printers’, see H639 (1653) and H647 (1655). Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 97 the Common Impressions now abroad, to the great scandal of Religion and Government, and abuse of the people’. 33 The new edition, ‘to be sold at the House of Henry Hills inAldersgate street, next door to the signof the Peacock’, remedies this situation: due care hath been had to settle the Printing of the Holy Scriptures, in an orderly way for time to come; and there is now a Bible finished, By His Highnesses [Cromwell’s] special Command, free from those Errors which are crept into many of the other Impressions, it being examined, corrected and amended according to the Original Manuscript Copy of the Translators. And to the end, that a Book of so sacred concernment, may be exactly and truly Printed for the future, there are two Correctors kept to correct all Bibles that shall be printed hereafter; and over and above, there is a very learned person appointed by his Highness, carefully to Revise every Sheet before it be wrought off at the Press. Kilburne gives the lie to these claims: this is the edition he considered ‘the worst of all the rest’ and from which he culled his longest list of errata. 34 But, for all their puffery, the claims are important. Recognising public feeling about the state of the text, FieldandHills judge that claims of correctness and authenticity will best promote their commercial ends, and that the notion of settling the text ‘in an orderly way for time to come’ will best preserve their position. Kilburne also looked to the establishment of a standard. Most of ‘Pro- posals humbly presented’ is about the means by which such a standard is to be established and preserved. ‘Humble proposals’ is more concise and interesting. First he proposes: That there may bee a fair Copie of the last Translationof the Bible, ingrossedeither in Parchment or Vellom, ina full Character, which may be compared with the Original, by four or five Ministers, and so kept in Sion-College, as an Authentick Record: for Orthography so truely and critically written, that hereafter a Letter shall not bee altered: That so all people, upon any doubt, may have recours to the Original, to prove whether their Printed Copies varie, or not. 35 ‘Original’ seems to mean, first, the translators’ manuscript, then the new ‘fair Copie’ (Kilburne is often fuzzy). Second, he proposes: 33 Mercurius politicus, no. 334, 29 October–6 November 1656, p. 7366, as giveninMcKitterick, I, pp. 325–6. Though the advertisement is anonymous, it clearly comes from Field and involves Hills. 34 Kilburne, pp. 10–12. I havenot seenthis edition, whichI presumeis H660. McKittericknotes that ‘Field’s reputation as a Bible printer foundered in his own lifetime on the disparity between his claim to the Authorized text, and the manifest inaccuracy of many of the editions to which his name was attached’ (I, p. 330). 35 McKitterick, I, p. 388 (and so the subsequent quotations). ‘In full Character’ probably means in a large hand and without abbreviations. 98 A Textual History of the King James Bible That the Bible hereafter may bee Printed truly, according to the Translator’s Copie, with the Divers Readings, and Paralel-places in the Margin, as formerly hath been don . . . This is either redundant or – if ‘Translator’s Copie’ means the same as ‘the Original’ that the ministers are to make comparison with – contradictory. The crucial point is that he looks for a standard and, while assuming the existence of the translators’ original, takes it as unsatisfactory. Point three is ‘that som able Scholars may bee appointed to mannage the Correction’; they should ‘have skill in the Original’, nowmeaning the original languages. It is here that the reference comes to the Bible being ‘never better printed’ than in the Cambridge 1638 edition, where indeed able scholars with skill in the original had supervised the text. Most of these points might have been cribbed from Field and Hills, but what matters most is the essentially conservative spirit they embody: let the editorial work be perfected, and enshrined in a standard – thereafter, no more changes. The recommended procedures never took place, and so, for want of anything evenbetter, the 1638text gainedmore andmore acceptance as the standard – or, in the word of Dangerous Errors, as ‘authentique’. The final point moves from correction of the text to correction of the translation: That (notwithstanding many faults were amended in the Cambridg-Edition, partly by som of the Translators themselves, partly by others, yet) the whole Translation may bee revised by Learned men, and publick notice given, that so others from all parts may suggest to the Reviewers, their Opinions concerning amendments. Diligently pursued, this point would produce a revised version, but it was to betwocenturies beforeEnglandwas readyfor that. Revisionhadalreadybeen attempted under the Commonwealth, but had collapsed with the collapse of the Commonwealth. 36 Viewing the history of the text to 1660 as a whole, it manifests a bat- tle between the commercial and the scholarly spirits in which the com- mercial benefits of being scholarly were occasionally realised. Within the scholarly spirit two impulses were in tension: one was the impulse to inno- vate in the endless quest for perfection, the other was the impulse to fix. By the time of the Restoration, the impulse to fix the text was ascendant. Innovation was confined almost entirely to presentation and extra-textual matters. 36 See Norton, I, pp. 216–24. Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 99 A hundred years of solicitude Kilburne’s campaignagainst poor printing andmonopolies hadsome effect. By the time of the Restoration, Field, who had been the chief object of his criticism, was printer to Cambridge University and, in the twilight of his career, produced editions that improved his reputation. However, they did almost nothing for the text: Field’s best-known edition is his 1660 folio (H666, 668), but his minimal contribution to the text comes in his octavo of the same year (H669). There Lev. 25:5, ‘of it owne accord’, first takes its modern form, ‘of its own accord’. Among the modern spellings that this text occasionally introduces are the consistent use of ‘alien’, 37 and ‘floats’ for ‘flotes’ at 1 Kgs 5:9. As with hundreds of examples one might choose, this latter is an inconsistent change: ‘flotes’ remains at 2 Chr. 2:16 and 1 Esdras 5:55; what is significant about it is that it suggests that this particular octavo, unlike most of the innumerable editions in smaller formats, did sometimes influence the text: ‘floats/flotes’ was common until about 1960 and can still be found in some editions. 38 The reason for its influence may be the additions to the marginal notes which Scrivener takes to be the notable aspect of this edition (p. 26). The marginal notes andreferences were further developedunder the aegis of Field’s successor as Cambridge Printer, John Hayes, in 1677 and 1678. 39 Development of the marginal material was a sensible commercial move. James I’s aversion to the Geneva notes had been influential in making the KJB a version free of explanatory annotation, but there was (and still is) a strong popular desire for such notes. From 1642 on at least nine editions of the KJB were published with the Geneva annotations (Norton, I. p. 214), and Henry Hammond’s popular AParaphrase, and Annotations Upon all the Books of the New Testament (H640), which gave the KJB text, a paraphrase and annotations, first appeared in 1653. When John Fell at Oxford first considered printing a KJB at Oxford, he envisaged an annotated edition, but this never materialised (Carter, pp. 86–7). In 1632 Archbishop Laud had obtained from Charles I Letters Patent giving Oxford University similar printing rights to those enjoyed at Cam- bridge, and for forty years there was a succession of agreements whereby, for 37 1611 uses ‘alien’, ‘alient’ and ‘aliant’, and the inconsistency goes back to changes made or not made in Bod 1602; before 1660 only two uses of the older forms had been modernised. 38 It introducedthe following modernisations, some of whichwere ignoredonly to be reintro- duced at a later time: ‘forasmuch’ for ‘for so much’ (Isa. 8:6), ‘impossible’ for ‘unpossible’ (Matt. 17:20; 19:26), ‘jailor’ for ‘iaylour’ or ‘jayler’ (1611, 1638; Acts 16:23), ‘lose’ for ‘leese’ (1 Kgs 18:5), ‘prized’ for ‘prised’ (Zech. 11:13), ‘stank’ for ‘stunk’ (Exod. 7:21), and ‘drank’ for ‘drunk’ (Dan. 5:4). 39 Scrivener, p. 26. The 1677 edition is H736, but Herbert does not record a 1678 edition. 100 A Textual History of the King James Bible a consideration, Oxford forbore to exercise its right to print Bibles (Carter, p. 29). Unlike the first Cambridge KJB, the first Oxford Bible (1675; H719 and 720) did little to the text other than employing idiosyncratic spelling which aroused some complaint: the new publisher thus failed to stake out newground, andwas put inhis place by the simple expedient of underselling as Cambridge had been earlier. 40 Further supplementary material was introduced in the second Oxford edition (1679; H744–6), notably the dates which long remained a fixture in the KJB and can still be found in some editions. Here they are given as years after the Creation, the Nativity being dated 4,000. The basis for the dates was Archbishop James Ussher’s calculations in Annales Veteris et Novi Testamenti (1650–4); they took their familiar form (B.C. 4004 for the Creation etc.) in the 1701 folio printed by Bill and Executrix of Newcomb (London; H868). This edition (or perhaps the Oxford folio of the same year, H867) was prepared by Bishop William Lloyd at the request of Convocation in 1699 for an improved edition. It is not clear whether there was serious dissatis- faction with the state of the text; as it happened, neither this nor the Oxford folio made much in the way of significant changes, and Scrivener notes that ‘except in regard to the dates, no principal edition so little influenced succeeding Bibles as this, notwithstanding the high auspices under which it came forth’. 41 Rather than scholarly attention to the originals, both these 1701 folios show a little concern with the spelling of names, 42 and with correctness and modernness of English. The London edition, which has slightly more innovations, changes the archaic ‘and other tempting him’ to the modern ‘and others . . .’ (Luke 11:16, but not elsewhere); ‘for so much’ becomes ‘forasmuch’ (1 Macc. 14:29 and, in London only, Isa. 8:6), and, in London only, ‘unpossible’ ‘impossible’ (Matt. 17:20; 19:26; Luke 1:37; 18:27). More drastically, for the change is arguably a change of word and meaning, both editions alter ‘shamefast’ and ‘shamefastness’ to ‘shamefac’d’ and ‘shamefac’dness’ (Ecclus. 26:15; 32:10; 41:16, 24 – the same change had been made in 1674 to 1 Tim. 2:9), and they correct the seemingly faulty 40 Carter, pp. 71–2, 97. Carter mentions ‘minor alterations in the text’ but gives no examples (p. 72). 41 Scrivener, p. 27. Scrivener notes that Records of the Proceedings of both Houses of Con- vocation are incomplete for 1699, and that the later records contain no direct evidence of a formal representation supposed to have been made by the Lower House to the Upper ‘respecting the many errors it contains’. 42 Both editions: ‘Chaldees’ for ‘Caldees’ in 2 Kings 25, continuing the regularisation of this spelling, ‘Hananeel’ for ‘Hananiel’ (Zech. 14:10, reversing Bod 1602’s change), ‘Jeremy’ for ‘Jeremie’ (1 Esdras 1:28 etc.), ‘Zachary’ for ‘Zacharie’ (2 Esdras 1:40), and ‘Judith’ for ‘Judeth’ throughout Judith; London only: ‘Sabi’ for 1629’s ‘Saby’ (1 Esdras 5:34) and ‘Malachy’ for ‘Malachie’ (2 Esdras 1:40, repeating a change made in 1616). Correcting and corrupting the text, 1629 to 1760 101 English grammar of ‘the riches that hee hath gotten is perished’ to ‘. . . are perished’ (Jer. 48:36). 43 They also give the modern form, ‘his wifes sons’ for ‘his wiues sonnes’ (Judg. 11:2; the apostrophe appeared in 1762). 44 For the next half century the dominant name in English Bible publishing was that of Baskett. JohnBaskett, througha series of purchases from1710on, became Queen’s Printer (as the title thenwas) inbothEnglandandScotland, and, from 1713 on, he leased the Oxford right to print Bibles. These rights passed to his sons Thomas and Robert in 1742. Since Cambridge stayed out of the market until 1743, this meant a long period of monopoly which did little that was good for either the text or the price of Bibles. 45 John Baskett’s first Bible was also his most notorious. A contemporary account of the work in progress is of particular interest, both because such accounts are rare and because it gives so clear a sense of the printer’s priorities: We are here printing a most Magnificent English Bible, some very few Copys will be in Vellumfor a Present to the Queen &my Ld Treasurer. You knowD r Wallis and D r Gregory pronouncedMr Dennisonabsolutely the best Corrector they ever met with. If this Workhave not the Advantage of his nice Eyat least ingivingthe first Directions, and settling the Distances of Lines & Words and the great Art in a beautifull and Uniforme Division of Syllables, with several other minute Regulations, invisible to vulgar Eys, the Work will want of its proposed Splendor . . . Mr Denison says the Fount of letters, is the very best He ever saw, and you know his Ey examines all the Tayls sides & Topps of letters &c. To do justice to M r Basket, He spares no Cost nor Pains. We shall throw out all the vast Numbers of References added by some late Reformers &Improvers of the Bible, reserving only those of the Original Translators themselves . . . 46 As printing, this was a superb book, as text it was that well-known ‘Baskett- ful of errors’, the ‘Vinegar Bible’ (1717; H942, 943), so called from the heading to Luke 20, ‘the parable of the vinegar’, for ‘vineyard’. A sampling of Baskett Bibles yields few textual innovations. Three words beginning in ‘un’ took their modern form (‘untemperate’, ‘undiscreet’ and ‘unperfit/unperfect’, bothof whichforms hadsurvived), e replacedthe apos- trophe in ‘shamefac’d’, and ‘wayes side’ became ‘way side’ (Luke 8:5). Three 43 ‘Riches’ could be construed as singular or plural, so 1611’s reading is not a solecism; OED’s last example of ‘riches’ used as a singular is from 1667. Curiously, in the Hebrew the noun is singular but the verb that follows is plural. 44 There are four other minor changes: in both editions, ‘hosts; and he dwelt’ for ‘hosts and dwelt’ (1 Macc. 13:53); in London only, ‘of the fire’ for ‘of fire’ (Deut. 9:10), ‘less in them’ for ‘less on them’ (Job 4:19), and ‘see afar off’ for ‘see far off’ (2 Pet. 1:9). 45 Carter gives an account of his John Baskett’s career, pp. 166–76; for complaints of inflated prices, see pp. 171–2. 46 Arthur Charlett, letter, 9 December 1713; as given in Simpson, p. 195. Denison is William Denison. 102 A Textual History of the King James Bible minor changes were made to readings: ‘for the press’ in place of ‘for pre- asse’ (Mark 2:4), ‘cast into prison’ for ‘cast in prison’ (Luke 23:19, repeating a 1616 change), and ‘but the time cometh’ for ‘the time commeth’ (John 16:25). 47 All in all, 100 years of solicitude produced almost nothing by way of lasting textual change. 47 Readings from various Baskett Bibles, 1743, 1744, 1752 and 1756. A more thorough exam- ination would probably reveal a few more contributions. 6 Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 Three Bibles Three outstanding folioBibles were producedinthe 1760s. The most famous was John Baskerville’s (1763, H1146), ‘one of the finest books ever to have been printed in Britain’; McKitterick adds that ‘as such, it must take pride of place in the history of printing in Cambridge’ (II, p. 195). Yet, except in a negative way, it is an irrelevance as far as the history of the text is concerned. Baskerville had been appointed University Printer at Cambridge alongside, but not in co-operation with, the incumbent, Joseph Bentham. He was to undertake specific projects, including the folio Bible. His declared ambition was ‘to render this one Work as correct, elegant, and perfect as the Importance of it demands’; he would give his country ‘a more correct and beautiful Edition of the SACRED WRITINGS, than has hitherto appeared’. 1 This is very much what Baskett’s aim had been with his folio Bible, but this was no ‘Baskett-ful of errors’. Negatively, what is so striking is that ‘correct’, while promising freedom from typographical error, does not involve work on the text or the annotations. Baskerville’s was a printer’s, not a scholar’s, Bible. Though Baskerville could designate himself ‘Printer to the University’ on the title page, he was in competition with the Press’s main commercial activity, as Bible printing now was – a major change since the beginning of the century. Cambridge’s printing had been in a parlous state. The Press was refounded in 1698 but did not begin to re-establish itself as a successful printing – and, to a much lesser extent, publishing – house until the 1740s. John Hayes, Printer to the University until his death in 1706, effectively worked for the Stationers’ Company, and he printed no Bibles after 1683. From 1706 on the Press entered into covenants of forbearance with the Stationers’ Company; among the items it forbore to print was the New Testament. Only once during the time of Hayes’s successor, Cornelius Crownfield (retired 1740), did the University lease the right to print the Bible. This says much of a decay in commercial competence, and the episode has both 1 ‘Proposals for Printing by Subscription, the Holy Bible’ (1759); reproduced in McKitterick, II, p. 199. 104 A Textual History of the King James Bible illustrative value for what it shows of the power of compositors and a real historical significance. The lessees claimed ‘to be Masters of a newdiscovery &rare secret in y e Art of Printing by Plates of a hard metal cast for each Page, w ch is contrived cheifly for books of constant & standing sale, & will make y e impressions vastly cheaper than in y e common way, & as they say, more beautifull too’. 2 In short, they were to use stereotyping, which was before long to prove the most important development in the printing of the Bible. Eliminatingtheneedfor standingtype, constant resettingandproofing(with all their attendant costs and the inevitability of error), stereotyping made Bible printing cheaper and uniform. It also had a significant bibliographical consequence: where previously continuous reprinting made it difficult to keep precise track of individual editions, now it becomes impossible. This first venture into stereotyping the Bible in England was abortive. The compositors were only too well aware of howit would abate their trade, so ‘when they corrected one fault . . . [they] made purposely half a-dozen more, and the press-men when the masters were absent battered the letter in aid of the compositors: in consequence of which base proceedings the books were suppressed by authority and condemned’. 3 This confirms what has been apparent in a number of instances as far back as the Printer’s and the Wicked Bibles, that the text was at the mercy of the compositors’ malice as well as their mistakes. With the retirement of Crownfield in 1740, reform of the Press began. Bible and Prayer Book printing was the central element (McKitterick, II, p. 175). Besides commercial motivation and a desire to bring honour to the University by doing the work well, the Press wanted ‘to serve the Public with a more beautiful and correct Edition than can easily be found’. 4 While ‘correct’ probably means free from typographical errors, as in Baskerville’s later advertisement, from the beginning there was care for the text. F. S. Parris, soon to be Master of Sidney Sussex, checked and proofed the text of the new edition (1743; H1063). At this stage the Press gave his work no publicity. He continued work on Cambridge Bibles, eventually being chiefly responsible for Bentham’s 1762 folio (H1142), where his contribution was recognised (McKitterick, II, pp. 183, 191–2). This was the second of the three outstanding folios. Parris worked mainly on scholarly textual correc- tion, italicisation, and marginal notes and cross-references, doing more, as 2 Conyers Middleton to Lord Harley, 2 April 1730; as given in McKitterick, II, pp. 177–8. 3 Edward Rowe Mores, A Dissertation upon English Typographical Founders and Founderies, ed. H. Carter and C. Ricks (Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical Soc., 1961), pp. 56–7; as given in McKitterick, II, p. 178. 4 Report of the Press’s Syndicate for Bible printing, as given in McKitterick, II, p. 180. This Syndicate (that is, committee) was established in 1738. Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 105 Scrivener observed, to bring these into their modern state than the better- known Oxford edition of 1769. 5 This Oxford edition, the third of the outstanding folios, propagated and, especially in matters of spelling and grammar, developed Parris’s work. Presumably in response to the developments manifest in the Cambridge folios, Oxford had determined in October 1764 that the lessee of its Bible Press should provide . . . one or more Copies of the Bible accurately collated with the Original or most Authentic Edition of the present Translation, and . . . these and no other shall hereafter be used in correcting the Books to be printed by virtue of this Lease, making due Allowance for modern Variations in mere Orthography. 6 Explicit concern for ‘the Original or most Authentic Edition’ is something we have not seeninthe century since Kilburne’s campaign. The Delegates did not knowwhat text totake, sothe Archbishopof Canterbury, Thomas Secker, was asked ‘what Copy of an English Bible his Grace would recommend as a proper Standard for the University Printer’. Secker too did not know; he thought the first edition was the 1612 roman folio, and replied that he had heard that Parris ‘took great Pains in the same good work’ (Carter, p. 358). This was not to be the last time one of the University Presses found itself ignorant of the basis of its text: the present bookcomes froma similar inquiry made by Cambridge University Press in 1994. Givensuchmeagre information, the OxfordDelegates ordereda collation of the Cambridge editions of 1743 and1760 withthe first editionandLloyd’s 1701 folio, and they sought an editor: Benjamin Blayney, later to be Regius Professor of Hebrew, volunteered. His report to the Vice-Chancellor and Delegates (reproduced in appendix 7) gives a good sense of what he did, and the problems and labour involved. ‘Mere Orthography’ gets no attention, punctuation a passing comment, and all that he says of the readings is that the text was collated (as instructed), and ‘reformed to such a standard of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any other edition hitherto extant’ – a claim too vague to be helpful. The one quasi-textual item that is 5 Scrivener, p. 29. Scrivener thought this edition had little circulation, and he quotes a manuscript note from the British Museum copy that ‘only six copies were preserved from a fire at the printers’ (p. 29 n.). It now seems that this fire is a myth, possibly a confu- sion with the fire that destroyed much of Blayney’s edition (for this latter fire, see Carter, p. 360). There was a further report that the fire happened while the printing was in sheets and that it was put out with water. However, the water stains in the surviving copies (of which there are at least eighteen), show no sign of the uniformity one would expect if this was so. I am indebted to Alan Jesson, Bible Society Librarian, for this information. 6 Carter, p. 356. Carter notes that Parris’s model is an obvious reason for making this require- ment at this time but that ‘subsequent discussions of this matter by the Oxford Delegates take no account of that Bible at all’ (p. 357). 106 A Textual History of the King James Bible commented on in some detail is the revision of the italics. For the rest he is concerned with extra-textual matters, the chapter summaries and running titles, the notes, cross-references and chronology. Finally, he relates the care with which the work was seen through the press. In spite of these claims to have given most attention to editorial aids to the understanding of the text (the italics are one such aid rather than a genuine matter of the text), his most significant contribution was to the spelling and, in some respects, the grammar of the text. It will be no surprise to find that Blayney’s claims exceed his achievement. Neither the work on the text nor the vaunted attention to the correctness of the printing was perfect: Scrivener (with none of the charity that an editor ought to accord to a predecessor if for nothing more than the fear of being found similarly fallible) judges the latter ‘conspicuously deficient’, and adds that ‘the commonly estimated number of 116 such errata would seembelow the truth’. 7 Aquarto (H1196) was prepared at the same time as the folio, but, in spite of the blemishes, Blayney considered the folio ‘somewhat the more perfect of the two, and therefore more fit to be recommended for a standard Copy’ (below, p. 197). Carter reports that it was for many years the standardby whichOxfordBibles were corrected; that is tosay, Blayney’s [folio] as corrected in manuscript by many hands in course of time. The folio volume kept for reference has hardly a page, except in the Apocrypha, without a corrector’s mark carefully written in ink. All but a few of these amendments are of slight significance: a capital instead of a small letter in a reference, a comma added, an English spelling modernized. (Carter, p. 358) As well as Oxford, most other printers at home and abroad took Blayney as standard, so that the text as now generally found is not that of the first edition but something that evolved unevenly over a century and a half before becoming nearly fixed by the standards of the 1760s imperfectly applied. What Parris and Blayney did to the text One of the more extraordinary copies of the Bible I have seen is the Cam- bridge University Library’s copy of Blayney’s folio. 8 It was purchased by Gilbert Buchananin1822for nine guineas andminutely annotatedthrough- out for its variations from what he takes to be the first edition, though it is 7 Scrivener, pp. 30–1. Characteristic of the errors are ‘ERZA’ as the header to Ezra 10, the omission of chapter summaries for Proverbs 26–9 and ‘a sweetsmelling favour’ for ‘a sweet- smelling savour’ (Eph. 5:2). 8 CUL Adv. bb. 77. 2. Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 107 clear fromsome of the variations that he was using the secondedition. At the beginning he notes that ‘the variations are chiefly in the pointing, and Italic words, or to the Text; but the Contents of the chapters are very much altered: And besides the obsolete spelling, many of the proper names are differently spelt’. The annotations constitute an overwhelming mine of information. Most verses elicit several annotations, so that as a whole Buchanan’s labours give a strong visual impression of the multitudinous variations in minutiae by which Blayney’s Bible (and, following it, modern KJBs) differs from the original. I note ninety-nine surviving textual variants from Parris and fifty-eight from Blayney; in addition to the usual possibilities of error in such figures, there nowarises the difficult questionof distinguishing textual variants from orthographic variations. The most significant thing is that the majority of the variants are matters of the English of the translation. Three-quarters (seventy-four) of Parris’s variants and nearly three-fifths (thirty-three) of Blayney’s are of this sort. Before dealing with these, it will be convenient to survey the variants that are not matters of English. Most of them make the translation more literal. The commonest change is to the number of a noun; Parris makes ten of these, Blayney eight. 9 All but three are changes to 1602 readings or, at Num. 1:2, to a reading created in Bod 1602: most or all are therefore changes to readings the translators saw and let stand in spite of the literal sense of the original. Parris and Blayney are being more scholarly than the translators thought fit. One of these changes involves a particularly complex sentence which, following Parris, appears in this form: When thou shalt beget children, and children’s children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the Lord thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. (Deut. 4:25–6) Compounding the complexity is the change from a singular to a plural subject, and then the momentary return to the singular in ‘thy God’. All this is exactly as in the Hebrew and – if one wants to – avoidable now because modern English does not distinguish second person singular from plural. Rather than avoiding the problem, the 1611 translators kept to the 1602 reading, which minimises the problem, by omitting the first ‘ye’ and not 9 Parris: Gen. 23:10 (and v. 18); 47:6; Exod. 29:26; Deut. 4:25; 16:4; Ezek. 34:28; Baruch 6:45; Matt. 26:75; Acts 7:35; 2 Cor. 11:26; Blayney: Exod. 23:13; Lev. 25:31; Num. 1:2 (and vv. 18, 20); 4:40; Ps. 141:9; Isa. 10:34; 1 Esdras 2:8; 1 Macc. 8:26. 108 A Textual History of the King James Bible changing to the plural ‘shall’ quite as soon as it should: ‘when thou shalt beget children, and childrens children, and shalt haue remained long in the land, and shal corrupt your selues . . .’. This seems to me a neat sleight of hand, but Parris is working to a stricter sense of a translator’s duty to the original. Only in one of these cases can one say with confidence that the translators shouldhave made a change to1602, ‘manof activity’ at Gen. 47:6. By making this plural, Parris gives the reading that is right by the Hebrew, grammatically consistent with the context, and consistent with the way the phrase is treated elsewhere in the KJB. 10 Several among the other changes for literal accuracy are worth noting. Numbers 7 is particularly revealing of the translators’ practice and the prob- lems they created for scrupulous editors. It repeatedly uses the formula ‘one siluer charger, the weight whereof was an hundred and thirtie shekels’, 11 or ‘the weight thereof was’ (v. 13), or ‘one siluer charger of an hundred and thirty shekels’ (vv. 31, 55), or ‘one siluer charger of the weight of an hundred and thirtie shekels’ (v. 43). The Hebrew is the same throughout. The variant ‘thereof/whereof’ goes back to 1602; ‘thereof ’ may be a typographical error, but the translators let it stand. Apart fromthis variant, 1602, like the Hebrew, is consistent: ‘a siluer charger of an hundred and thirtie sicles’. Now, all the changes in the 1611 text are recorded in Bod 1602, including the spelling ‘sicles/shekels’. The result is variety, and I take this to be deliberate. The translators judged that, though it is always in the Hebrew, ‘weight’ could on occasions be omitted because it would be understood. Parris thought oth- erwise but, rather than changing vv. 31 and 55 to the standard formula, he respected the translators’ different construction and simply inserted ‘of the weight’: ‘one silver charger of the weight of an hundred and thirty shekels’. Because the other variant, v. 43, represents all the Hebrew words, he left it alone. This example, as graphically as any, shows the difference in practice between the 1611 translators and their editors. Most of the remaining corrections for literal accuracy deal with articles, most commonly inserting an omitted definite article. 12 In all these instances there is a reasonable case that the translators deliberatelychose, for reasons of style, not tobe exact. Curiously, there are a fewinstances where Parris, appar- ently also for style, makes a reading less literal. 13 Blayney, more justifiably, 10 Exod. 18:21, 25; Judg. 20:44, 46; 2 Sam. 11:16; Neh. 11:6; Ps. 76:5; Isa. 5:22; Jer. 48:14; Nahum 2:3. 11 Vv. 19, 25, 37, 49, 61, 67, 73 and 79. Spelling varies between ‘thirty’ and ‘thirtie’. 12 Parris: Exod. 34:25; Josh. 12:6; Ezra 7:18; Matt. 16:16; 27:52; Luke 19:9; 20:12; John 15:20; Acts 5:34. Blayney: Deut. 20:7 (restoring a 1629 reading); Ps. 99:2; Isa. 44:13; Acts 18:5. Other literal changes: from Parris: 1 Chr. 6:60; Rom. 3:24; from Blayney: 1 Cor. 10:28. 13 Matt. 9:34; Acts 24:14; 2 Cor. 11:26; 2 Tim. 1:12. Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 109 occasionally makes a tense consistent where the translators chose to follow the inconsistencies of the original. 14 Finally, it is worth noting that Blayney restores three 1611 readings, 15 and that he spots two genuine errors that arguably go back to the original compositor rather than the translators. 1 Macc. 16:14 is corrected from ‘threescore and seuenth’ to ‘threescore and seventeenth’ (1602 was correct here), and 2 Cor. 5:2 is corrected from ‘we grone earnestly, desiring’ to ‘we groan, earnestly desiring’. Some of these examples cross the line between matters of accuracy and matters of English, as does another group of variants from these editors, apostrophes. Among the variant readings are eighteen apostrophes that survive from Parris, and eight from Blayney. To judge from these and from the lackof contemporary rules, they may well have regardedapostrophes as a matter of ‘mereorthography’. 16 Curiously, all thosenotedfromParris (except ‘Ptolemeus’ ’ 2 Macc. 1:10) are placed before the s, whereas Blayney’s usually follow the s. Consequently, modern editions have nine singular possessives that should be plural, seven inherited from Parris, two from Blayney, and another six plural that should be singular from Blayney. 17 A century later Scrivener corrected these, but his changes were not adopted. Various other aspects of English are either tidied up or similarly con- formed to more modern standards. Several readings are worth comment. Parris removes a superflous ‘that’ from ‘and it came to passe, that after the yeere was expired . . . that Dauid . . .’ (2 Sam. 11:1). He did not knowthat the 1611 reading was created in Bod 1602 by the insertion of the second ‘that’, but what we do not know is whether the translators accidentally omitted to delete the first ‘that’. Only one ‘that’ is found in the similar verse 1 Kgs 20:26. So Parris’s emendation, right by modern standards of language, could be what the translators intended but is not what they wrote. Occasionally he changes word order, apparently to improve the style, as in the change from ‘their children also shall sit’ to ‘their children shall also sit’ (Ps. 132:12), and sometimes he makes small modernisations of expression, as changing ‘he feedeth of ashes’ to ‘he feedeth on ashes’ (Isa. 44:20), or ‘the word which’ 14 Mark 6:7; John 11:34. 15 2 Cor. 3:3 (but 1617’s ‘fleshly’ is still found in some editions); 8:7; 1 Tim. 4:16. 16 Robert Lowth’s A Short Introduction to English Grammar, which appeared in the same year as Parris’s edition, does not mention possessive apostrophes, nor does Johnson’s dictionary mention them either in the short grammar at the beginning or under ‘apostrophe’. 17 Parris’s misplacedapostrophes: 1Chr. 7:2, 40; Ezek. 44:30; Wisdom15:4; Ecclus. 13:19; Matt. 14:9; Mark 6:26; Blayney’s singulars for plurals: Ezra 2:59; Neh. 7:61 (here Parris omitted apostrophes); plurals for singulars: Ps. 6:4; 31:16; 44:26; 140:3; Prov. 31:14; Dan. 2:41. Two of Parris’s errors are corrected in later editions (Baruch 1:4 and 1 Macc. 10:89); Blayney changed Parris’s correct reading at Prov. 31:14, and he changed Parris’s ‘neighbour’s’ to ‘neighbour’ at Deut. 23:25 – here Parris is correct and Blayney defensible. 110 A Textual History of the King James Bible to ‘the word that’ (Jer. 40:1), or ‘sitting in’ to ‘sitting on’ (Acts 25:6). One change of this sort involves a very familiar reading: ‘and haue no charitie’ becomes ‘and have not charity’ (1 Cor. 13:2). The most obvious variants that are matters of English are the changes of words. Parris changes elevenandBlayneyanother four. Possiblytheythought some of the changes merely orthographical, as in the following from Parris: ‘sneezed’ for ‘neesed’ (2 Kgs 4:35), ‘curdled’ for ‘cruddled’ (Job 10:10), ‘gin’ for ‘grinne’ (Job 18:9 etc.), ‘glittering’ for ‘glistering’ (Job 20:25), ‘outer’ for ‘utter’ (Ezek. 10:5), ‘brittle’ for ‘brickle’ (Wisdom 15:13), ‘straitened’ for ‘straited’ (Susannah 22), ‘aware’ for ‘ware’ (Matt. 24:50; Luke 12:46), ‘abide’ for ‘bide’ (Rom. 11:23) and ‘inhabitants’ for ‘inhabiters’ (Rev. 17:2); and this from Blayney: ‘amend’ for ‘mend’ (2 Chr. 34:10). Most or all of these would nowbe reckoned different words. Four changes obviously go beyond what might loosely be thought of as orthography: fromParris, ‘eightieth’ for ‘fourscore’ (1 Kgs 6:1); from Blayney, ‘first’ for ‘one’ (1 Kgs 16:23), ‘turned’ for ‘returned’ (Ezek. 1:17), and ‘number’ for ‘multitude’ (Judith 2:20). Two things are striking about these changes. First, though most are sensible and some of them, because of obsolescence, may even be necessary, others need not have been made. Second, some of the changes are inconsistent. Perhaps ‘first’ for ‘one’ is acceptable in the few phrases like ‘the sixe hundredth and one yeere’ (Gen. 8:13) because Blayney follows the lead that 1638 gave here and they render the two phrases consistent. But Parris’s ‘eightieth’ for ‘fourscore’, a change of the identical sort, is inconsistent with leaving ‘fourscore’ at 2 Macc. 1:10 (and one might argue that, if ‘fourscore’ is to be changedwhenit is anordinal, it ought alsotobe changedwhenit is a cardinal number). Similarly, to change ‘glistering’ at Job 20:25 but leave it at 1 Chr. 29:2 and Luke 9:29 is inconsistent. Still more inconsistent is ‘outer court’ when ‘utter court’ is unchanged in its twelve other occurrences. Perhaps one might point the finger at the compositor for some of these inconsistencies. If so, they escaped both Parris and Blayney. Overall, the tendency to make occasional modernisations of language is marredby the failure tomake them consistently, and such inconsistencies remain in most modern texts. Parris and Blayney occasionally make changes to verbs. Blayney changes four of the Apocrypha’s five uses of the modern third person singular ‘he stickes’, and the like, to the old fashioned form used everywhere else, ‘he sticketh’ and so on. 18 Some tenses are adjusted, as in Lev. 5:10, where the first edition reads awkwardly: ‘and the Priest shal make an atonement for him for his sinne, which he had sinned’. Parris amends to ‘he hath sinned’, which is exactly what the first editiongives inv. 13. We would judge a perfect 18 1 Esdras 4:21; Ecclus. 44:12; Baruch 6:9, 21. He missed Ecclus. 22:2; consequently ‘every man that takes’ remains as the one modern third-person singular in current texts of the KJB. Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 111 to be the correct tense here, but sequence of tenses could be looser in the translators’ time than we would expect (e.g. Gen. 47:18). Here, then, there is reason to agree with Parris, but also reason to think that the 1611 reading is deliberate. This is the case with five of the nine other changes to the verbs. 19 Twice Parris’s corrections involve a judgement as to whether direct speech is involved; at Jer. 1:13 the translators appear to make the sentence change midway from speech to narrative: ‘and I said; I see a seething pot, and the face thereof was towards the North’, but Parris makes the whole sentence speech: ‘the face thereof is toward the north’. Either is possible; however, Parris is right to change the tense at the end of Zech. 4:2 because there is no possibility of change from speech to narrative. Blayney makes two changes that are less justifiable. At Lev. 13:29 he takes ‘a man or woman’ as a plural subject and so alters ‘hath’ to ‘have’, and he treats ‘people’ similarly at 2 Esdras 3:35. Along with these changes go a number of changes to modern forms: ‘had dedicate’ becomes ‘had dedicated’ (2 Kgs 12:18), ‘dedicate things’ becomes ‘dedicated things’ (1 Chr. 26:20 etc.), ‘to be heat’ ‘to be heated’ (Dan. 3:19), ‘I start vp’ ‘I started up’ (Tobit 2:4), ‘will fat’ ‘will fatten’ (Ecclus. 26:13); all these are from Parris. Blayney changes ‘was a building’ to ‘was building’ (2 Chr. 16:6). The largest single grammatical problem tackled by these editors is ‘you’ and‘ye’, aproblemmade more complicatedbyadisjunctionbetweenlinguis- tic practice andgrammatical prescription. ‘Ye’ was originally the nominative and vocative form, with ‘you’ used for other cases, but this distinction was breaking down in late medieval times. OED notes of ‘you’ that ‘between 1300 and 1400 it began to be used also for the nominative ye, which it had replaced in general use by about 1600’; and of ‘ye’, that ‘when you had usurped the place of ye as a nom., ye came to be used (in the 15th c.), vice versa, as an objective sing. and pl. (= “thee” and “you”)’. The first edition of the KJB reflects the confusion between the two by using ‘you’ as a nomi- native 289 times, and ‘ye’ for the accusative or dative 12 times. Statistically, this is little more than 4% of the 7,251 occurrences of ‘ye’ and ‘you’, which suggests that the general use of ‘you’ for ‘ye’ by 1600 is only weakly reflected in the KJB. Nevertheless, there are places in the KJB where the two words or forms are mixed so freely that it is clear that fixed practice has broken down, and possible that the two were not given distinct pronunciations. A couple of verses provide a particularly useful example: Ye shall obserue to doe therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: you shall not turne aside to the right hand, or to the left. You shall walke in all the wayes which the Lord your God hath commanded you, that ye may liue, and that it may 19 Parris: 1 Kgs 15:27; 16:19; Blayney: Num. 30:8; Ps. 115:3; 2 Esdras 16:42. 112 A Textual History of the King James Bible be well with you, and that ye may prolong your dayes in the land which ye shall possesse. (Deut. 5:32–3) ‘Ye shall’ at the beginning is obviously inconsistent with ‘you shall’ later in the sentence and at the beginning of the second verse, and the later uses of ‘ye’ as subject. Inthe time of Blayney andParris, the mid-eighteenthcentury, the replace- ment of ‘ye’ by ‘you’ was still more a matter of usage than grammatical prescription. So Johnson as a grammarian gives ‘ye’ as the nominative and ‘you’ as the ‘oblique’ form, 20 but, as a lexicographer, he notes that ‘you’ ‘is used in the nominative; and though first introduced by corruption, is now established’. Robert Lowth, in his Short Introduction to English Grammar (1762), is less old-fashioned: he gives ‘Ye or You’ for the nominative, but dismisses instances of ‘ye’ inother cases as improper or ungrammatical, even as manifest solecisms (p. 22). In these circumstances Parris and Blayney had three choices: 1. they could, following the standards articulated by Lowth, keep all the original usages of ‘you’ and correct the dozen wrong uses of ‘ye’ to ‘you’; 2. they could make the text consistent according to the translators’ pre- dominant usage, using ‘ye’ for the nominative and ‘you’ for the other cases; 3. or theycouldfollowthe now-establishedusage andgive ‘you’ throughout. Eachchoice was grammaticallydefensible. The first wouldallowinconsistent usageandbelargelytruetotheoriginal. Thesecondwouldbeunimpeachable but old-fashioned. The third would begin to change the general linguistic character of the text: might not ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ be replaced with ‘you’; 21 and, if that change is made, might not the old-fashioned endings (‘-eth’ etc.) be eliminated? By this time the language of the KJB had become what Johnson calls ‘solemn language’: it was the accepted language of the Bible and religion, distinguished from ordinary language, so such changes would probably have been unacceptable. Parris seems to have chosen the second option but then to have had doubts (or become careless); after Genesis, where he made fourteen of the seventeen necessary changes, he usually but not always left what he found as he found it. It was Blayney who carried out the second option with admirable thoroughness. That this was a conscious move towards making 20 ‘Grammar of the English Tongue’, prefixed to the Dictionary. 21 Johnson notes that ‘you’ is ‘the ceremonial word for the second person singular, and is always used, except in solemn language’, a usage the OED traces back to the fourteenth century. ‘Vnto you;’ at 2 Esdras 4:47, translating ‘tibi’ appears to be an example of the modern ‘you’ singular. Setting the standard, 1762 and 1769 113 the KJB speak uniformly ‘solemn language’ fits with his replacement of the modern with archaic verb forms in the Apocrypha. Very occasionally Blayney misses an example or makes a mistake. ‘You were inferior’ for ‘yee were inferior’ (2 Cor. 12:13) looks like a plain mistake. ‘And you, be ye fruitfull’ (Gen. 9:7) escapes him, though he does change the one other example of this construction ‘and you, in any wise keepe your selues’ (Josh. 6:18) to ‘and ye . . .’. Erroneously, he changes ‘I speake with tongues more then you all’ (1 Cor. 14:18) to ‘. . . more than ye all’, as if ‘ye all speak’ was implied; the Greek is genitive. Sometimes his work seems to produce problems where imperatives are used. ‘Goe ye, get you straw where you can find it’ (Exod. 5:11) looks as if it should have ‘ye’ each time, but Blayney only changes ‘you can’, leaving the apparently inconsistent ‘goye, get you’. He is right: bothverbs are imperative, but the second, ¬ã, is followed by cel, literally ‘get to you’. Representative of larger apparent inconsistencies, the first edition has ‘prepare you’ three times and‘prepare ye’ six. 22 Blayney leaves ‘prepare youvictuals’ (Josh. 1:11) untouched because the Hebrew has cel, but changes ‘prepare you the way of the people’ (Isa. 62:10) to ‘prepare ye . . .’ because the verb is imperative without cel. Like manyaneditor (andtranslator), he nods inthe Apocrypha, leaving ‘prepare you after your families’ at 1 Esdras 1:4. The instances of ‘prepare ye’ are unproblematic. This, therefore, is what has happened: the first edition’s normal practice was to use ‘ye’ with the imperative except where something in the original, usually cel, dictates using ‘you’ as the indirect object. Blayney has changed this practice into a rule, with the result that the text still looks inconsistent but is fully defensible in the light of the originals (it is very rare to find a slip such as 1 Esdras 1:4). 23 Why did Blayney’s become the standard text? It is a massive task to prepare a new text of the KJB (I write with feeling). This is one of the main reasons why Blayney’s became the standard text. Oxford and Cambridge, the two chief scholarly guardians of the text, had now each undertaken that task, and it is not to be expected that they would want to do it again immediately. That Blayney’s rather than Parris’s became 22 ‘Prepare you’: Josh. 1:11; Isa. 62:10; 1 Esdras 1:4; ‘prepare ye’: Isa. 40:3; Jer. 6:4; Baruch 1:10; Matt. 3:3; Mark 1:3; Luke 3:4. 23 ‘Get you’ in the sense of ‘go’ is not an exception since ‘get’ in this sense is reflexive. One other aspect of ‘you’ and ‘ye’ is worth noting. Johnson observes that ‘you is commonly used in modern writers for ye, particularly in the language of ceremony, where the second person plural is used for the second person singular’ (‘Grammar’). The KJB once uses ‘ye’ – rather than ‘you’ – in this way: ‘pass yee away thou inhabitant of Saphir’ (Micah 1:11). 114 A Textual History of the King James Bible the standard was not simply a matter of his offering it as such. Even without close scholarly scrutiny, it was clearly a step beyond Parris: in terms of scholarship it adopted and added to his work, and in terms of orthography, grammar and punctuation it was a large step beyond, achieving a reasonable approximation to contemporary standards. Though it was not perfect, as any close examination would have revealed, it was clearly the best text so far. One other reason may be suggested. The decade of the 1760s marks a watershed in attitudes to the KJB. Where previously it had had little or no positive literary reputation, it now became generally agreed to be a fine, a great work of English literature, something that popular feeling and the tide of critical opinion agreed in loving and revering. Some seventy years after Blayney’s edition, Henry Hallam put the point succinctly: ‘the style of this translation is in general so enthusiastically praised that no one is permitted either to qualify or even explain the grounds of his approbation. It is held to be the perfection of our English language’ (II, p. 464). This attitude to the KJB as literature I have called AVolatry (History, II, p. 176). Now, ideas of perfection as literature seem to run together with ideas of perfection as religion, as translation and as text. Early in the 1760s new translations were received with encouragement, but by the 1780s neophobia had set in: now ‘to reform the text of the Bible would have appeared to the ignorant little less than a change of a national religion’. 24 The reform meant is new translation, but the same spirit and the very way it is expressed would lead to resistance to any change to the received formof the text of the KJB. The same kind of inference could be drawn from Thomas De Quincey’s definition of ‘bibliolatry’ as being, from a Roman Catholic point of view, ‘a superstitious allegiance – an idolatrous homage – to the words, to the syllables, and to the very punctuation of the Bible . . . we, according to [the Catholics], deify an arrangement of printer’s types’. 25 Though he does not have the KJB in mind and is bent on arguing with such ideas, he is clearly reflecting a prevailing spirit that could attach itself to the smallest details of Blayney’s text. 24 Critical Review 63 (January 1787), p. 46. 25 ‘Protestantism’ (1847–8), The Collected Writings of Thomas De Quincey, ed. David Masson (Edinburgh, 1890), VIII, p. 263. 7 The current text Introduction The three official guardians of the text, the two University presses and the King or Queen’s Printer, became two when Cambridge took over Eyre and Spottiswoode. Sothe standardEnglisheditions of the text are those currently issued by Cambridge in its own right and as Queen’s Printer, and Oxford. They are identical in the Testaments but not the Apocrypha. Only six new changes to the text have been introduced into them since 1769. In the OT ‘Lord’ is changed to ‘Lord’ at Neh. 1:11, and in the NT ‘Zaccheus’ becomes ‘Zacchæus’. In the Apocrypha ‘Ioribas’ becomes ‘Joribus’ (1 Esdras 8:44), the verbs following ‘alms’ are changed to plural at Tobit 4:10, ‘generation’ is made plural at Ecclus. 4:16, and the apostrophe is moved in ‘king’s sons’ (Baruch 1:4), making ‘kings’ plural (only the last of these is in the Oxford text). Besides these, at least thirty old readings, of which twenty-two are spellings of names, were reintroduced. 1 Sosmall a total is partly a reflectionof the commercial realities amidwhich printers andpublishers continuedtowork: it was oftenmore thanthey could do to keep up with demand, and, while there was often demand for greater accuracy and quality in printing (and cheapness in price), there was little demand for textual innovation. 2 If sales declined and a new market niche was needed, improved presentation, especially the inclusion of illustrations, better annotations and supplementary study aids such as concordances and maps were far more likely to be successful. Moreover, the fixity of the text was like a hallmark, a guarantee that this was the true, the traditional Bible. As the market for newtranslations developed, especially after World War II, rendering the English Bible thoroughly unstable, the unchanging steadiness of the KJB was a huge asset. Nevertheless, care for the text did go beyond care that it should be free from errors of the press, and periodically very substantial work was done, 1 Readings other than names: Josh. 19:2; 2 Chr. 33:19; Job 30:6; Ps. 148:8; Nahum 3:16; Zech. 11:2; Matt. 26:39 (and Mark 1:19); John 14:6. Names: Gen. 10:7; 25:4; 46:12; Exod. 23:23; Josh. 10:1 (and 3); 19:19 (two readings); 2 Sam. 5:14; 21:21; 23:37; 1 Chr. 2:49; 5:11; 7:19; 23:20; 24:11; 2 Chr. 20:36; Ezra 4:10; Neh. 7:30; Esther 1:14; Amos 2:2; 1 Esdras 5:55; 1 Macc. 3:16 (and 3:24; 7:39; 9:50). 2 For a detailed account of how commercial realities affected Cambridge University Press in the early nineteenth century, see McKitterick, pp. 259–84. 116 A Textual History of the King James Bible though only occasionally can information about it be recovered. This is largely because publishers have not kept good records of their work, often not identifying what we might take as new editions as such, rarely adver- tising that work has been done on the text, and usually keeping the work anonymous. Consequently copies were only occasionally sent to the copy- right libraries, rendering these collections quite haphazard. 3 At the Bible Society the librarians simply did not collect all editions because they were so commonplace. Editions such as Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible of 1873, identified as something new and accompanied by an account of the text, were unusual, and their unusualness commonly indicated that they stood apart from the normal transmission of the text. Evenif the textual history from1769 tothe present couldbe reconstructed fully, it is doubtful whether it would be enlightening enough to justify the effort. Instead, a few things are concentrated on here: a crucial campaign against the way the University presses hadexercisedtheir responsibilities, the workof the AmericanBible Society, particularly inthe 1850s, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible, and, finally, the development of the standard Cambridge text. Should the text have been changed? Thomas Curtis and the Universities The same spirit that prompted WilliamKilburne’s Dangerous Errors in 1660 resurfaced in the 1830s, this time to greater effect, if not exactly the effect intended. Led by Thomas Curtis, a committee of dissenting ministers cam- paigned for a reliable text of the KJB. Curtis’s The Existing Monopoly, an Inadequate Protection, of the Authorised Version of Scripture (1833) yields fascinating insights into the states of the text and the workings of the Uni- versity presses, and is also notable for its detailed scrutiny of the KJB’s textual history. Curtis’s basic position was that, besides many accidental errors, the modern texts contained a very substantial number of intentional changes fromthe authorised text, and that only those changes that corrected 3 This is no new observation, as the following colourful complaint from 1833 shows: Why, my Lord, the [copyright] law provides, that one hundred hand-bills shall not be issued . . . without the Printer filing a copy; and that a novel shall not be printed at the Minerva or any other Library, without a registration of it at Stationers’ Hall, and copies being duly presented to certain public libraries. Edition after edition, however, of this all-important volume, the Bible, may be put forth, (the new one printed from the last, or the one nearest hand) and the precaution of keeping a copy shall not be thought of! responsibility as to any errors it may contain, resting in reality no where. I was perfectly astounded to find last year that of the successive editions of the Bible, no distinct traces could be found! (Curtis, p. 84) The current text 117 printing errors could be reckoned legitimate. He prefaces his work with this calculation: Counting the words only which are altered in the modern Bibles, and a few of the paragraph marks, which are important; that is, not at all including the general alterations of the orthography or minute punctuation, there appear– intentional departures from king james’ bible. In the Book of . . . Genesis . . . . . containing 50 Chap. . . . 807 Exodus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 . . . . . . . . 724 Psalms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150 . . . . . . . . 600 Lamentations. . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . 59 St. Matthew’s Gospel. . . 28 . . . . . . . . 416 Hebrews. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 . . . . . . . . 147 Revelation. . . . . . . . . . . . 22 . . . . . . . . 178 308 2931 Or, in about one-fourth of the Bible, upwards of Two Thousand Nine Hundred such departures, suggesting the presumption, that there are upwards of Eleven Thousand in the entire Version. (Curtis, p. ii) These numbers are manifestly excessive, possibly because Curtis takes the text to include the margins, chapter summaries and headers. Yet, coupled withCurtis’s indefatigable lobbying, theywere effective. Howcouldone trust a text that contained even a few, let alone thousands of deliberate changes from that which had been authorised, in Curtis’s view, by the Hampton Court conference. He argued that the authority or ‘commission was ful- filled by the delivery of the joint labours of the Translators to his Majesty’s Printer’, and became thereafter ‘defunct’, so that even ‘the Translators themselves possessed no right whatever to make in future a single critical alteration, without a renewed authority’ (p. 51). Here of course he rode roughshod over the entire history of the text, in which fromthe beginning – and with the cooperation of some of the translators – the right and even the duty to make corrections were taken for granted. Inevitably, he denied the right of the Universities to make ‘material critical alterations’. Their sole responsibility was ‘to preserve the public and authorised, a settled anduniform Version’ (p. 2). Curtis was, inshort, a textual fundamentalist, but perhaps not much different froma modern scholar bent on establishing a text that represents as fully as possible the intentions of its creators. Much of The Existing Monopoly consists of Curtis’s epistolary and per- sonal dealings with representatives of the two Universities, the Bishop of London (to whom the work is addressed) and, briefly, the Archbishop of Canterbury. Having discovered that ‘there was no common system, nor common concord between the Universities’ in discharging their responsi- bilities to the text, he inquired of Cambridge ‘what were the methods which the University had taken . . . to secure future correctness’. The answer was 118 A Textual History of the King James Bible ‘that the Cambridge authorities would print the Bible correctly – if they “did but know the standard to be followed”’; further, they asked the Bishop of London for information on a standard (shades of the question Archbishop Secker was unable to answer seventy years earlier), and ‘professed, on these subjects an utter want of confidence in “the Oxford men”’ (pp. 4–5). Curtis subsequently found the Cambridge situation compounded by an ignorance even of Parris’s edition, and a lack of useful Bibles: there was not even one copy of Blayney’s Bible in Cambridge, so he was assured (p. 19). Nevertheless, the University was sympathetic to proposals to rectify the situation, and Curtis embarked on a substantial collation as part of the Uni- versity’s effort to produce ‘an edition which may be considered as a Standard’ (p. 22), a phrase that translated into the Syndics’ wish ‘that the new edition should be an exact reprint of that of 1611, with the exception of typographi- cal errors’ (p. 28). However, the Syndics changed their mind and the edition was aborted. Curtis meanwhile had also been dealing with Oxford. ‘Can you’, he asked the Regius Professor of Divinity, Dr Burton, ‘be fairly said to have a Standard (certainly you have not an authorised one) at Oxford?’ (p. 37). The question was double-edged, for he knew the answer, that they generally followed Blayney, and he also knew how to undermine it. Not only was Blayney full of errors, but Oxford’s own prestigious 1817 folio (H1678), edited by George D’Oyly and Richard Mant, had not followed Blayney for the whole text. Rather, it had returned to the margin and summaries of the first edition because, as they say of the addedmarginal references, ‘they do not rest onthe same authority, as the references of the Translators’. 4 Burton replied that all the mistakes listed by Curtis had been corrected, and took this as evidence that Oxford did refer to the first edition: ‘the fact is, that Mr. Collingwood has introduced a systemof accuracy which is perhaps not to be found in any other Press; he constantly refers to the original edition, a copy of whichis lodgedinthe Press, andyour ownletter is a convincing proof that he makes good use of it’ (p. 39). However, he would be obliged to Curtis if he acquainted the Press with mistakes in the latest edition. This invitation led to Curtis visiting Oxford, where Collingwood, the Printer, kindly sent the Press’s copy of the first edition to Curtis’s inn for inspection – a courtesy or carelessness one would not now expect. As well as inspecting other copies, Curtis ‘found at the Bodleian . . . a folio Bible of 1602, originally Selden’s; with many MS. suggestions, as they are thought to be, of one of King James’s Translators’. He adds prophetically that ‘in a rigid collation, for the sake of perfectly returning to the Standard, I saw reason to suppose this book would be useful’ (p. 42 n.). 4 Oxford, 1817, 3 vols. ‘General Introduction to the Bible’, vol. 1, unpaginated. The current text 119 At this time Curtis’s involvement with Cambridge came to light, lead- ing, he supposes, both to the breakdown of the Cambridge project and, very importantly, to renewed cooperation between the Universities. 5 Curtis meanwhile was left on the outside, still campaigning. There were two important consequences: greater uniformity in the edi- tions of both Universities and an exact reprint of the first edition, published by Oxford in 1833 (H1792), a truly remarkable piece of work that repro- duces all the quirks of the first edition, even inverted letters, with scarcely an error. This was judged by the Delegates to be ‘the most effectual method for enabling themselves and others to judge how far the complaints were well-founded’. 6 Scrivener comments that this edition ‘virtually settled the whole debate, by shewing to the general reader the obvious impossibility of returning to the Bible of 1611, with all the defects which those who superin- tended the press had been engaged, for more than two centuries, in reducing to a more consistent and presentable shape’ (p. 35; for a contrasting view, see below, p. 120). One might add in qualification that many of Curtis’s complaints had been justified, and that the studious general reader might still want to see exactly what the translators and their printer produced. 7 One quiet element rebutting Curtis is worth noting. Following the title page, there is a collation of the first edition with the 1613 folio (selected in preference to the other folios because no two exactly identical copies of them could be found). Over 400 variations of words are recorded so that ‘the Reader may learn how far it was thought necessary to correct the Authorized Text in the time of the original Translators’. In short, Curtis’s claim that no substantive change to the original was permitted was shown not to be the view held in the time of the translators, thus affirming that there was precedent for the continuing work on the text. The necessity of standardisation having been brought home to the Uni- versities, the Oxford standard, essentially Blayney’s text, now ruled. The American text By the 1830s the American Bible Society’s (ABS) texts were serving as the model for other American publishers. 8 In 1847, thirty years after the Society first expressed concern about the accuracy of its texts, its Board of Managers 5 This was also becoming a commercial necessity; see McKitterick, II, pp. 254–5. 6 The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint, statement bound in at the beginning. 7 In recent times this has been possible through the Nelson 1990 ‘word-for-word reprint of the First Edition of the Authorized Version presented in roman letters for easy reading and comparison with subsequent editions’ (title page); save for some of the introductory material, this appears to be a photographic reproduction of the Oxford edition. 8 Herbert, p. 397; I am indebted to Herbert for some of the information in this section. 120 A Textual History of the King James Bible established a Committee on Versions to create its own standard text. After four years work the Committee recommended ‘that the Octavo Reference Bible, nowin the course of preparation . . . be adopted as the Standard Copy of the Society; to which all future editions published by the Society shall be conformed’, and presented a report giving some occasionally inaccurate history of the text and detailing the ongoing work (Report, p. 32). The result was a fine quarto Bible, large enough to be a folio, published, without the Apocrypha, in 1856 (H1904), and intended to be the standard American Bible Society text. The Report itself was initially accepted then rejected ‘on the ground of alleged want of constitutional authority, and popular dissat- isfaction with a number of the changes made’. 9 Similarly, the 1856 Bible ran into trouble, mainly because of its work on the chapter summaries. A new committee was formed, changes were reconsidered, and new editions were produced which did become standard for seventy years. Nevertheless, it is the work of the first committee that is of the greatest interest, for the Report gives the most substantial account of work on the text so far published, and the 1856 text itself has real merits. Fundamental to the edition was a collation of the Society’s ‘royal octavo edition’ with‘copies of the four leadingBritisheditions, viz. those of London, Oxford, Cambridge, and Edinburgh; and also with the original edition of 1611’ (Report, p. 16); the Oxford edition was Blayney’s, which ‘has been regarded, ever since its publication, as the standard copy’ (p. 10). Though this collation yielded nearly 24,000 variations in text and punctuation (not including the margin, summaries or headers), the Committee declaredthere was ‘not one, which mars the integrity of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible’ (p. 31). If Curtis would have been astonished at this, his apoplexy can only be imagined at the further declaration that ‘the English Bible, as left by the translators, has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text; except in the changes of orthography which the whole English language has undergone’ (p. 7), and, similarly, that the lesson of the 1833 reprint of the first edition was that, typographical errors and orthography excepted, ‘the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and is without variation from the original copy as left by the translators’ (p. 11). The basis for this nonsense is that there are three kinds of variation: printer’s errors in 1611, printer’s errors in subsequent editions, and ‘other variations from the reading of 1611’; though the Committee initially suggested that it was not always certain whether these last were deliberate, after listing examples it observed that they ‘are also mostly, if not all, merely errors of the press, which have been corrected in later editions’ (pp. 11, 14). The work of editors therefore hadbeento ridthe text of typographical errors. So Blayney’s object 9 Scrivener, p. 37, quoting Schaff, Revision of the English Version, p. xxxi n. The current text 121 had been ‘to restore the text of the English Bible to its original purity’, and he had succeeded ‘to as great a degree as can well be expected in any work of like extent’ (p. 14). Having collatedits six texts (andwithout considering that its four modern texts might be Blayney’s and three close representations of his work), the Committee treated this unscholarly sample in a still more unscholarly way, that is, it treated them democratically. The rule it adopted for variations in punctuation, that ‘the uniform usage of any three of the copies shall be followed’, appears to reflect its general practice, which resulted ‘in the great majority of instances [in] conformity with the [modern] English copies’ (pp. 17, 25). If this is an unkind reflection on a huge project, the Committee brought it on itself by obliterating almost all signs of scholarly consideration of the actual merits of readings: only five readings settled with reference to the original are noted, under the innocent heading, ‘Words’. 10 As far as the readings are concerned what the Committee offered was Blayney with his own 116 typographical errors removed. With its ‘great and leading object [being] uniformity’ (p. 19), it helped to entrench the Oxford standard. 11 The policy of following the punctuation of the majority of their copies prevented innovation, and also worked against uniformity with any one of their copies: the result was an eclectic version of eighteenth-century punc- tuation. Nevertheless, the committee did good work in other areas such as the chapter summaries, the regularisation of names (something that now makes the American Bible Society’s Apocrypha strikingly different fromthe British editions) and the spelling. This last is what catches the eye because it contains a significant number of the changes that still need making to the British editions, including regularising the use of ‘a’ and ‘an’. Here are the main changes to words that still appear in an old form (given in parentheses) in the British editions, an asterisk indicating those found in the 1856 text but not noted in the Report: astonished (astonied) assuaged (asswaged) aught (ought) awl (aul) basin (bason) borne (born) braided (broided) brazen (brasen) caterpillar (caterpiller) ceiling (cieling) *chapped (chapt) cleft (clift) cloak (cloke) clothes (cloths) 10 Report, pp. 19–20. Josh. 19:2; Ruth3:15; Song 2:7; Isa. 1:16 (‘washyee’, 1611); Matt. 12:41. In this last, whichthe Report misquotes, the definite article is inserted, giving ‘inthe judgment’, because the Greek has the definite article and the same phrase is so translated in the next verse. The Committee does not record how it reconciled this change with its principles. 11 Scrivener’s view of this edition is the same, though he expresses himself more harshly, pp. 37–8. 122 A Textual History of the King James Bible cuckoo (cuckow) *entreat (intreat) grizzled (grisled) *havoc (havock) *heretic (heretick) *inflaming (enflaming) jubilee (jubile) *laden (loaden) lain (lien) lift (lifted) loathe (lothe) *lowering (lowring) *lunatic (lunatick) *marshes (marishes) *mixed (mixt) mortar (morter) music (musick) outer court (utter court) *paid (payed) plaster (plaister) plucked (pluckt) *portray (pourtray) prancings (pransings) prized (prised) *public (publick) raven (ravin) rearward (rereward) *recompense (recompence) *repaid (repayed) ringstreaked (ringstraked) sackcloth (sackclothes) *since (sith) soap (sope) soldering (sodering) *spew (spue) sponge (spunge) steadfastly (stedfastly) *stoics (stoicks) streaks (strakes) strewed (strowed) *stripped (stript) *sycamore (sycomore) *Syriac (Syriack) thoroughly (throughly) *while (whiles) American editions have been more inclined than the British to follow this example, but with no great thoroughness, although the policy of the ABS continued to be that spelling should be conformed to mod- ern standards (Herbert, p. 399). It is a pity that the example was not generally followed, for then some unnecessary difficulty and appearance of antiquity would have been removed from the text a century and a half ago. F. H. A. Scrivener and the Cambridge Paragraph Bible By far the most substantial andresponsible work onthe text after the work of the translators themselves was F. H. A. Scrivener’s The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, with the text revised by a collation of its early and other principal editions, the use of the italic type made uni- form, the marginal references remodelled, and a critical introduction prefixed (1873; H1995). The collation was not only far more substantial than any previously attempted, even extending to minute work on the KJB’s sources, but it was responsible in the way that it provided a thorough account of the work. The current text 123 The Cambridge Paragraph Bible had a double purpose, one part of which is indicated by the use of ‘paragraph’ in the title. It moved the chapter and verse numbers to the margin, leaving an ‘unbroken text [arranged] in paragraphs accommodated to the sense’, re-paragraphed the whole and presented the poetic parts in poetic form. 12 In this way it anticipated many modern translations though, sadly, its crammed page layout makes it one of the most painful Bibles to read. Regrettably (rather than sadly), only a few editions of the KJB such as The Reader’s Bible, jointly published by the three guardians of the text in 1951, followed the attempt to create an unbroken text, presumably because of the conservative pressures already remarked on, and because such editions appeared as literary editions. Re- presentation was so little Scrivener’s main interest that the single paragraph on it at the beginning of the original introduction disappears fromhis book, and his main purpose takes precedence: to prepare ‘a critical edition of the Authorized Version’ that would represent it, ‘as far as may be, in the precise shape that it would have assumed, if its venerable Translators had shewn themselves more exempt than they were fromthe failings incident to human infirmity; or if the same severe accuracy, whichis nowdemanded incarrying so important a volume through the press, had been deemed requisite or was at all usual intheir age’ (Scrivener, pp. 1, 2). Yet, for all the virtues this critical work has, The Cambridge Paragraph Bible remained outside the mainstream of the text and has rarely been re-issued (though the thought of re-issuing it still exists). 13 Again the likely reason is the public’s resistance to changes in the KJB whenever changes are advertised. The importance of Scrivener’s work is everywhere attested in the present book. Nevertheless, just as there are weaknesses in the introduction that necessitated this new book being written, so there are aspects of The Cam- bridge Paragraph Bible that would still have needed reworking even if it had become the standard text. Consequently I focus here on the two main areas where I disagree with Scrivener’s work: his treatment of variants and his approach to spelling. Implicit throughout is the idea that an editor’s duty is to perfect the text in the light of the originals. By highlighting the translators’ human infirmity, Scrivener opens the way to changing the text even where there is no printing error involved. This aligns him with most previous editors, feeling himself able to correct the text where he judges the translators to have erred. Rather than treating the KJB as the work of the translators, he 12 Cambridge Paragraph Bible, p. ix. I have followed Scrivener’s book except in this case where there is a significant difference between the original introduction and the later revision given in the book. 13 It was used as the text for the finely-printed Doves Press limited edition of 1905 (H 2139), and Bagster’s New Testament Octapla (1962). 124 A Textual History of the King James Bible treats it as a textual process. Where editors have contributed to this, their contributions are entitled to the same respect as those of the translators. What he writes of the marginal notes, that ‘every rendering must be judged upon its own merits, independently of the source from which it was drawn’ (Scrivener, p. 58), describes his general attitude. So the aim to present ‘the precise shape that it would have assumed’ if the translators had not nodded implicitly assumes that the translators would have agreed with the changes if their attention had been drawn to their necessity. In short, sometimes editors know better than authors, and the authors would have agreed with them. Perhaps they would have, but there is a large measure of supposition, perhaps even arrogance, in such a position. Scrivener himself repeats a story of one of the translators, Richard Kilbye, that should be cautionary for all editors who presume to go against the readings of the first edition where they are not manifestly printing errors: The Doctor [Kilbye] going to a Parish Church in Derbyshire . . . found the young preacher tohave nomore discretionthantowaste a great part of the hour allottedfor his sermon in exceptions against the late translation of several words (not expecting such a hearer as Dr Kilbye), and shewed three reasons why a particular word should have been otherwise translated. When Evening Prayer was ended, the preacher was invited to the Doctor’s friend’s house, where after some other conference the Doctor told him, he ‘might have preached more useful doctrine, and not have filled his auditors’ ears with needless exceptions against the late translation; and for that word for which he offered to that poor congregation three reasons why it ought to have been translated as he said, he and others had considered all of them, and found thirteen more considerable reasons why it was translated as printed.’ 14 The moral is worthstressing: editors assume at their peril that the translators erred. Enough examples have come to light in the course of the present work (to say nothing of textual criticism in general) to prove the existence of this danger, and to prove that Scrivener himself succumbed to it. There is a difference between ‘would’ and ‘should’. Aiming to give the text ‘in the precise shape that it would have assumed’, Scrivener is giving it in the shape he thinks it shouldhave assumed. He tests the variants not by the evidence for the translators’ judgements, but by his viewof howthe original texts should have been translated. The result is more conservative than Blayney’s text, for he restores about a third of the original readings (listed in his appendix C); nevertheless, in general terms it comes to this: the reader of the Cambridge Paragraph Bible can never be certain that the text is that of the translators because Scrivener is at heart a reviser. 14 Izaak Walton, Life of Sanderson, p. 367 (Zouch, 1807), as given in Scrivener, p. 138 n. The current text 125 Scrivener’s spelling is bothold-fashionedandquirky. Thoughhe approves in general terms of ‘clearing the sacred page of uncouth, obsolete, and vari- able forms, which could answer no purpose save to perplex the ignorant, and to offend the educated taste’ (p. 94), he cut himself off from full mod- ernisation in several ways. His general – though not absolute – rule was this: ‘whensoever an English word is spelt in the two issues of 1611 in two or more different ways, to adopt in all places that method which may best agree with present usage’ (p. 94). Consequently, where these two editions did not have an example that fitted with present usage, the old form was often pre- served, as ‘ebeny’ (Ezek. 27:15). Moreover, his judgement of present usage was conservative, and significantly influenced by his view that spellings that reflected etymology were to be preferred even if they went against present usage. So, instead of ‘scent’ he gives ‘sent’, ‘following the ordinary, if not the universal practice of the seventeenth century, inasmuch as sent is true to the etymology, and is invariably used in all the five places where the word occurs’. He restores ‘sailer’ at Rev. 18:17 because Johnson declares it ‘to be more analogical than sailor’, and because it remained in use after 1638 (p. 96). Some of the old forms such as ‘marish’ and ‘astonied’ he keeps because they are ‘not wholly banished from our modern books’, and their ‘presence tends to lend richness and variety to the style’ (p. 100). He is sim- ilarly conservative with grammatical forms, keeping many of the archaic past tenses such as ‘dipt’ because they ‘contribute to produce a pleasing variety in the style of a version, and are grammatically just as accurate as the modern forms’ (p. 102; inconsistently, he also uses ‘dipped’). Such atti- tudes and practice, hardly to be excused by remembering that the Oxford English Dictionary was then an unborn child, make his work on spelling valueless. 15 Conclusion: a fossilised concord The few changes between Blayney and the current text reflect the relatively simple progress of the Oxford text. With the Cambridge text things were not so straightforward. After Parris’s work it seems to have lost its way, or, perhaps more accurately, as Curtis’s narrative reveals, it lost all knowl- edge of the way it had taken. At some point around the beginning of the nineteenth century it departed from Parris’s work in ways that must have been the result of substantial effort. I take the 1817 octavo as representa- tive, though from Curtis’s observations it is clear that this text goes back 15 The negative judgement on this part of his work is similar to accusations of rashness and randomness that were made on his work on the Greek text; see McKitterick, II, p. 371. 126 A Textual History of the King James Bible at least as far as 1805. 16 It is an eclectic combination of old and new work that is most interesting for the number of 1611 readings it restores, most notably ‘shewed’ at Hos. 6:5, a reading found only in the first edition, some 1612 quartos and the 1616 folio. There must have been collation with one of these editions; one guesses with the first. Consequently, many readings that Cambridge had introduced as long ago as 1629 disappear. How many other texts were involved is impossible to know, but in places some of Blayney’s readings appear, and there are also a few independent changes such as ‘Uzzah’ for ‘Uzza’ at 1 Chr. 6:29, following the spelling in 2 Samuel 6. Often, in its preference for 1611 readings, I find this a better text than Blayney’s, but it is impossible to find a clear or consistent principle running through it. Followingall theconcerns raisedbyCurtis, Cambridgesilentlyabandoned this text: it couldhardlydootherwisesinceit knewsolittleabout its ownwork and could not make any credible claims to having a standard. It followed the one proclaimed standard, Oxford’s, almost entirely. 17 The text was now effectively settled, and, rather than dismissing Curtis as the crank he has generally been taken to be, we must recognise him as a serious worker who played an important role in achieving this result. I have taken three 1857 texts to check the state of the Victorian text in the hands of its three official guardians, and compared it with the cur- rent text. There are five variations: at Judg. 13:19 the 1857 editions have ‘wonderously’ for the current ‘wondrously’, at 2 Chr. 2:16 Oxford and Eyre and Spottiswoode have ‘flotes’ for ‘floats’, at Job 30:6 all have ‘cliffs’ for the current ‘clifts’, and at Matt. 26:39 and Mark 1:19 ‘farther’ for ‘further’. By 1931 Cambridge had changed these to the current spellings, and the current text was finished. 18 Cambridge has calledits maineditionof the Bible without the Apocrypha ‘concord’. Whether or not this was to mark the Universities’ joint care to ensure that their texts agreed, they do agree, and what they agree on has the inestimable merit of over two centuries of near uniformity. We must be absolutely clear what it really is: a text that all but fossilised in the 1760s. The modern KJB is a mutated version of a seventeenth-century text with partially modernised spelling, punctuation and presentation. Some of the mutations are necessary corrections of errors of negligence in the original, some of them are deliberate changes made in good faith to improve the text 16 Curtis notes its reading at Hos. 6:5 in Cambridge duodecimos of 1805 and 1819 (p. 88). 17 I take the 1837 folio as representative of this text. It has older readings at 2 Chr. 16:6, Jer. 16:2, 34:11, 1 Esdras 3:11, 8:2, Judith 5:14 and 2 Macc. 12:27, and follows an 1835 reading at Neh. 1:11. A few other variations may be errors. 18 Againthe date is indicative, not definitive. H2239, BritishandForeignBible Society, London (but printed at Cambridge), Ruby 32mo. This edition had a long life: the Bible Society Library also has the ten million and first copy, from the eighty-third impression, 1966. The current text 127 according to the judgement of many successive individuals, individuals who often worked anonymously and even more often left no account of their work. Many of these changes do not stand up to critical examination, and the spelling, punctuation and presentation are all in acute need of further modernisation. part 2 The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible 8 Variants and orthography Two principles The text needs to be revised in two basic ways: one is to undo mistaken changes, the other is to revive the work of modernisation that, in the English text, stalled in the eighteenth century. The first principle is that the text should be that of the translators, not that of subsequent revisers, and that the text of the translators is the first edition. Variant readings should be decided in the light of the deliberate decisions of the translators, even if the reasons for those decisions are not necessarily apparent. The test is not whether a later variant can be argued to be better in some way, but whether there is a strong likelihood that an error of copying or printing is involved in the first edition. No attempt should be made to correct perceived errors of scholarship. The second principle is that the text should be modernised. This is not to change the text but to continue to allow it to speak as clearly as possible in its own authentic voice to the contemporary reader. The basic elements of the modernisation are spelling and punctuation. From the variety and inconsistency of the 1611 text it is clear that, for the most part, neither of these involve deliberate intentions of the translators and so do not demand respect and reverence in the way that the readings do. A reader troubled by this principle has two alternatives available: the first is to read a facsimile or exact reprint of the first edition, the second is to agree that modernisation is acceptable, but not beyond eighteenth-century standards, and so to read a text that is neither as the translators presented it nor genuinely modernised. What follows is an account of how The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible has followed these principles, including as necessary some further parts of the history. The beginning of The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible began to take shape in 1994 when Cambridge University Press decided it needed to reset its text, but first made inquiries of various people. The following extract from a letter written by the Bible Publishing Manager to myself raises curious echoes of the situation 132 A Textual History of the King James Bible Thomas Curtis encountered in the 1830s as well as giving what is needed of the background: I am at the point in which decisions have to be made on what changes/corrections we will put into our KJVdatabase files. The filmwe print fromis showing its age and we need new images. The KJV files that we have purchased need to be proofed out, read and corrected, and then used to create camera-ready copy for our forthcoming KJV Bible printings. I can no longer put the decision off as to what to use as a basis for this ‘correction’. It has been suggested to me that the answer – or at least as good a one as any – is to use Scrivener’s Paragraph Bible as the Cambridge standard, and to correct the database to mirror that edition. I am told that it is far better than a lot of other efforts, is thorough and reasonably consistent, and S’s explanation and justification of his choices fills a book. It has stood the test of years and no one can say that it is not ‘The Real KJV’ . . . The other way to go about it would be simply to use our current Concord KJV editionas the basis. It was prepared/editedby someone fromOxfordandanopposite number from Cambridge after the second War, and it is supposed to incorporate ‘modern’ spelling and good editorial practice. No names seem to be attached to the enterprise, and no documentation can be found. So if we were to use this as the basis we would do so without making a show about it and without being able to back it up in the same way as we could with Scrivener. But the market doesn’t really require us to do this, nor does the scholarly commu- nity. What we do have to have is a respectable, defensible and(reasonably) consistent text we can use for all our AV editions. In short, institutional memory had been lost, and while there appeared to be no compelling need to work at the text, the Press wished to act responsibly. Eventually it was agreed that the spelling needed attending to, and that the current Cambridge Concord text should be collated with Scrivener’s text (something that was done). As work progressed, it became clear that more than spelling needed attending to. As with the spelling, so the punctuation was neither right by current standards nor that of the translators. It too had to be revised. Moreover, examination of the invaluable list of variants in Scrivener’s book suggested that some of the changes that had happened in the text were ques- tionable and that all the variants needed to be examined. In due course the importance of the manuscript annotations in Bod 1602, especially in the OT, were realised, and their evidence along with that of MS 98 was incorpo- rated into the examination. Presentationalso was antiquated, so this too was attended to. The result is, it is hoped, more scholarly and trustworthy than any of its predecessors because of its first principle and because the manuscript evidence of the translators’ work has been consulted. It is also readable in a way no other reference editions (that is, editions retaining the chapter Variants and orthography 133 and verse system of reference) have ever been through its consistent use of modern spelling and its reformation of the punctuation and presentation. The variant readings These, the subject of so much earlier discussion, are differences in the text, including punctuation, that in some way involve understanding or expres- sion. All the variants between the first edition and the current text have been considered. They are listed in appendix 8, with information as to the 1611 reading, when the variant was introduced, what the original text was, which reading has been followed, and why. Also included is information fromBod 1602 and MS 98, but this is treated within strict limits. It can throw light on existing variants but has not been allowed to suggest new variants, even though it is very possible that it would suggest some further places where the text may not be what the translators decided on. The reason for this limitation is twofold. First, The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible was never intended to have new readings, but to be a conservative revision; second, until the huge task of transcribing and analysing all the Bod 1602 annota- tions has been undertaken and completed, the light it sheds on readings that have never been varied will remain unknown. One large element included among the variants is names; these are dis- cussed after spelling has been considered. Information on short-term variations, most notably where the second edition has a reading that has not been followed in later editions, has gener- ally been omitted as such variations are a side track fromthe main history. ‘Mere orthography’ Editing is an unglamorous task and, save only for punctuation, spelling is its least glamorous aspect. Nevertheless, it is important. This is more than a matter of wanting to give the Bible the best possible presentation. As a contemporary of Parris and Blayney observed, ‘there ought to be the greatest exactness eveninspelling the Scripture because our childrenlearnto readby it’. 1 Blayney particularly workedinthis spirit, making multitudinous changes without achieving ‘exactness’. Modern English editions (American editions to a lesser extent) still largely follow his work, with the result that the spelling of the KJB largely conforms to eighteenth-century rather than modern standards, and is inconsistently done. 1 Purver, New and Literal Translation, I, p. vi. Purver’s criticisms of the English of the KJB provide a useful context for Parris and Blayney’s work (see Norton, History, II, pp. 73–85). 134 A Textual History of the King James Bible Plate 5. Ezekiel 40:42 From the first edition KJB Before observing what Parris and Blayney did, we need to examine what they had to deal with. The sample page from the first edition made the simple point that spelling was unfixed in 1611. Individuals might spell a word now one way, now another, and compositors could use this freedom as theywishedtoincrease or diminishthe number of characters ina line. This freedomwas not limited by matters of sound: spellings that we would expect to produce different pronunciations were used interchangeably. Moreover, some words existed – and still exist – in more than one form, and different words might take nearly identical forms that in due course could become confused. As standards of spelling became relatively fixed in the eighteenth century and the expectation became general that the text should be spelt consistently and to contemporary standards, the variety of the inherited text presented a multitude of problems. Two examples from the first edition will be helpful, particularly as they involve the relationship between spelling and sound as well as the general variation of spelling. Plate 5 shows how Ezek. 40:42 appeared in the first edition. We might infer fromthe thirdline that ‘andanhalfe’ was the compositor’s preferred form because he uses that first, but when he decides to save space at the end of the line (presumably because leaving ‘halfe’ to the next line wouldcreate toomuchwhite space), ‘an’ or ‘a’ is as indifferent tohimas ‘and’ or an ampersand (the 1602 text has ‘and a halfe’ both times). 2 We would think that a change of sound must be involved, yet it is difficult to imagine that a reader would have pronounced the phrase one way one moment and 2 Similar inferences might be drawn from Exod. 25:10, which has ‘and a halfe’, ‘and an halfe’ and ‘& a halfe’. Variants and orthography 135 another the next. ‘Murderer/murtherer’ suggests the same. Numbers 35 has ‘murderer’ ten times, ‘murtherer’ once; that one instance comes within a few words of ‘murderer’: ‘the murderer shall surely be put to death. The reuenger of blood himselfe shall slay the murtherer’ (vv. 18–19; again 1602 is consistent, ‘murderer’). Spelling clearly did not define sound. 3 Such problems face editors throughout the KJB, and some of them remain unresolved in modern texts. ‘Murther . . .’ is uniformly changed to ‘murder . . .’, but ‘an half’ is found ten times, ‘a half’ fifteen (as against twelve and thirteen in the first edition). Some other variations remain exactly as they were in 1611. One last example, viewed from 1611 to the present, will be helpful, ‘rec- ompense/recompence’, a word the KJB uses as both noun and verb. The OED lists ‘recompence’ as the variation, and notes of the noun that ‘the spelling -ence is more frequent than the etymological -ense (cf. the vb.) until the 19th c.’. Here, then, is a word that printers and editors can treat as they wish without being wrong and without affecting the sound of the text. In the first edition both spellings are used indifferently, as in, ‘will ye render mee a recompence? and if ye recompense me, swiftly and speedily will I returne your recompense vpon your owne head . . . Behold, I . . . wil returne your recompence vpon your owne head’ (Joel 3:4, 7 – a variation that was probably created by the compositor: Bod 1602, which often turns out to have more consistent orthography, has ‘recompense’, and no changes are noted by the translators). The Cambridge editors of 1629 and 1638 set- tled for the etymologically-correct ‘recompense’ for both noun and verb, and subsequent editions keep ‘recompense’ as the verb. It is what happens with the noun that is interesting. 4 Mid-eighteenth-century editions (going against Johnson, who gives only ‘recompense’) tend to use ‘recompence’ but without complete consistency. So Baskett’s 1752 edition (H1095) misses 2 Esdras 15:55, Ecclus. 17:23, Rom. 1:27 and 11:9. Parris misses the same verses in the Apocrypha, and also Isa. 59:18, 66:6 and Heb. 11:26; moreover, he gives ‘recompence’ for the verb at 2 Thess. 1:6. Blayney gets everything right except the very first occurrence (Deut. 32:35) and the same verses in the Apocrypha. Subsequent English editions follow the eighteenth-century lead but complete the work that Blayney left flawed. Some American edi- tions, however, follow the lead of the ABS edition of 1856 (H1904), and use ‘recompense’ for both noun and verb, exactly as the first Cambridge edi- tions had done. Overall, editors have felt free to vary the spelling of the text 3 Stanley Wells argues similar points in relation to Shakespeare, Modernizing Shakespeare’s Spelling, pp. 6–8. 4 The noun comes in: Deut. 32:35; Job 15:31; Prov. 12:14; Isa. 34:8; 35:4; 59:18 (twice); 66:6; Jer. 51:6, 56; Lam. 3:64; Hos. 9:7; Joel 3:4 (twice), 7; 2 Esdras 15:55; Ecclus. 12:2; 14:6; 17:23; 20:10; Luke 14:12; Rom. 1:27; 11:9; 2 Cor. 6:13; Heb. 2:2; 10:35; 11:26. 136 A Textual History of the King James Bible throughout its history, but eighteenth-century standards, made uniform, dictate the modern English text. This last example gives a good indication of Blayney’s noble but flawed attackontheproblems of orthography. Theoverall result is that moderntexts contain a mixture of words that are correctly and consistently modernised, words that are treated inconsistently (the inconsistency does not necessarily correspond, example for example, withthe inconsistencyof the first edition), and words that, correctly, retain the same variety they had in 1611. All these problems must be tackled. As far as the text permits, its spelling should be to the best contemporary standards. These may be either English or American, according to what is familiar to the readers, but happen in the present case to be English, with the OED taken as the primary authority. Questions of meaning A number of guidelines were developed and then refined as the work went on. They divide into two groups according to whether an issue of meaning is involved or not. The following involve meaning and are summarised in what was originally a separate guideline, that where the preservation of something in 1611 that might otherwise be modernised is likely to prevent misunderstanding, then preserve it: 1. modernise unless the meaning of the text is changedor obscured; be wary of transgressing against etymology; 2. preserve genuine forms of words but not variant spellings; 3. where possible, use variant acceptable forms to represent clearly identi- fiable semantic variations. Very importantly, this principle is not modernise wherever possible. Mod- ernisation must not be at the expense of the text, even if the result is more difficult for the reader. To begin with, here is an example of a word that would be modernised if the principle was to modernise wherever possible: ‘bewray’. The case for changing it to ‘betray’ is quite strong. ‘Betray’ and ‘bewray’ overlap inmean- ing. OEDquotes Prov. 29:24: ‘who so is partner with a thiefe hateth his owne soule: hee heareth cursing, and bewrayeth it not’, for ‘bewray’ in the sense of ‘reveal, divulge, disclose, declare, make known, show’. Now, this is OED’s seventh sense of ‘betray’, first recorded from 1697, ‘to reveal, disclose, or show incidentally; to exhibit, show signs of, to show (a thing which there is no attempt to keep secret)’. There is no obvious difference, and OED prob- ably is not telling the full truth about these words, that, as ‘bewray’ became archaic and then obsolete, ‘betray’ was confused with it and took over its meanings. Johnson gives evidence for this. His first definition of ‘bewray’ is ‘to betray; to discover perfidiously’; after his second definition, giving the Variants and orthography 137 sense in question, ‘to show; to make visible’, he notes: ‘this word is nowlittle in use’. His fifth definition of ‘betray’ is ‘to show; to discover’. In effect the two words became one; therefore, modernising wherever possible, ‘bewray’ can be changed to ‘betray’. Moreover, ABS gives a precedent for making the change. There are several reasons against making the change. ‘Bewray’ and‘betray’ are separate entries inOED, andthere is nocross-reference. 5 They goback to different Middle English words, and ‘betray’ goes further through French to the Latin ‘trado’; highly educated in Latin, the translators would have been sharply aware of the active sense involved in ‘trado’, to hand over. Moreover, in spite of the synonymity just observed, there is often a distinction of meaning perhaps reflected by the fact that the two Hebrewwords translated ‘bewray’ are never translated in the KJB as ‘betray’. ‘Bewray’ usually means to reveal whereas ‘betray’, more actively, invokes the Latin. The summary of Jonah 1 describes Jonah as ‘bewrayed by a tempest’: the fact that he is a Hebrew is revealed, he is not handed over by the tempest to the sailors. One might say that the fact that ‘bewray’ and ‘betray’ were different words is an artificial distinction. However, there is nothing artificial about the differences of meaning sometimes involved. Here is a similar example, except that this time the received text does change the 1611 word. In almost all modern KJBs, 1 Tim. 2:9 reads: ‘that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety’. ‘With shamefacedness’ seems to mean ‘with an ashamed appear- ance’, rather than‘withmodesty’, whichis what ut:ccioc0, means. The 1611 reading is ‘shamefastnesse’, which is an antonymof ‘shameless’ in a different way from ‘shamefaced’, as Ecclus. 26:25 shows: ‘a shamelesse woman shalbe counted as a dog: but she that is shamefast will feare the Lord’. OED regards ‘shamefaced’ as originally an etymological misinterpretation of ‘shamefast’, and shows that the two words had converged in meaning ‘ashamed’ by the middle of the seventeenth century. ‘Shamefac’dness’ was introduced in 1674 (Scrivener, p. 236), reflecting this convergence, but, inappropriately, tomod- ern ears, producing a sense of guilt. ‘Shamefast’ and ‘shamefaced’ became confused in the same way as later happened with ‘bewray’ and ‘betray’, and here still more obviously modernisation incorrectly changes the meaning of the text. It is better to have a difficult correct wordthat might tease the reader to a right understanding (the similarity with ‘steadfast’ might be suggestive) 5 I followthe practice described by Wells, mindful of the cautionhe offers: ‘editors of modern- spelling texts generally observe the principle that a word is spelt as it appears in the lemma of the Oxford English Dictionary for the entry in which the word is defined. But this principle is easier to enunciate than to put into practice . . . The presence or absence in OEDof a separate entry for a variant spelling affords no criterion by which variant forms can be distinguished from variant spellings of words in which there is no distinction of definition.’ (pp. 5, 7). 138 A Textual History of the King James Bible than an easier incorrect modernisation that produces wrong associations unless the reader is exceptionally alert. Now, the English of the KJB has many archaic words that present similar challenges to the understanding, but, in the absence of a closely similar modern word, it is obvious that changing them is translating them. ‘Shamefaced’ and ‘betray’ are hidden translations, whereas ‘tax collector’ for ‘publican’ is an obvious translation. Both produce a different Bible. Finally, here is anexample where anoldformsometimes brings out a sense present in Jacobean but lost in modern English: ‘in stead’. OED notes that it changed from being two words to one between 1620 and 1640, but there is more than orthography involved. ‘Instead’ in modern English generally has a weak, non-figurative sense, ‘as an alternative to’, but there are places where the text has the strong figurative sense, ‘in the place of’, most notably, ‘and he tooke one of his ribs, and closed vp the flesh in stead thereof ’ (Gen. 2:21). The current reading, ‘closed up the flesh instead thereof’ obscures the original meaning and must be nonsense for many readers. The last guideline involving meaning is, where possible, to use variant acceptable forms to represent clearly identifiable semantic variations. At first sight, ‘beside’ and ‘besides’ look like an example of the same sort as ‘bewray/betray’, but, rather than two nearly identical words which have converged, here there are two forms of what was one word in the KJB’s English (and also in Johnson’s) which have come to have distinct meanings. The first edition uses either form at random, showing a slight preference for ‘beside’ (95 to 72). Modern editions are still random, but with a strong preference for ‘beside’ (151to16). This is Blayney’s creation. It is inconsistent in all possible ways, neither following the first edition nor settling on a single form nor following a distinction of meaning. As OED notes, ‘besides’ ‘has been used in all the senses of beside, but is now used, in prose, only in senses 2, 3, for which it is the proper word’; these senses are, ‘in addition’ and ‘other than mentioned’. ‘Besides’, then, is abstract, whereas ‘beside’ has concrete, locative senses, ‘by the side of’. In this instance, the best solution to the muddle in the received text is to recognise that a distinction of spelling (something the translators were indifferent to) has become a distinction of meaning (something the translators were thoroughly sensitive to), and so to conform the usage to this distinction. Sometimes, but by no means always, the result will be identical with the first edition. Ruth ‘sat beside the reapers’ (Ruth 2:14), the reading in all editions, is right because she is, locatively, by the side of the reapers. Later inthe book, Boaz says tothe kinsman, according to Blayney and so to moderneditions, ‘there is none to redeemit beside thee’ (4:4): ‘beside’ misleadingly suggests that there is no-one standing next to the kinsman who could redeem it, but the first edition’s ‘besides’ gives the right sense, that there is no-one other than the kinsman. Such distinctions are needed throughout, whether or not they are to be found in the first edition. Variants and orthography 139 ‘Divers’ and ‘diverse’ are similar. Though 1611’s predominant form is ‘diuers’ (105to8), the spellings are usedinterchangeably, notably inidentical contexts in Daniel 7 where ‘diuers’ comes in vv. 3 and 7, and ‘diuerse’ in vv. 19, 23 and 24. ‘Divers’ continues to mean ‘various, sundry or several’, but OED notes of it in the sense of ‘different or not alike in character or quality; not of the same kind’, ‘obs. in this form since c 1700, and now expressed by diverse’. The spelling has therefore been adjusted to reflect the two senses, even though they sometimes overlap. ‘Further’ and ‘farther’ have beentreated inthe same way, following OED’s distinction: in standard Eng. the form farther is usually preferred where the word is intended to be the comparative of far, while further is used where the notion of far is altogether absent; there is a large intermediate class of instances in which the choice between the two forms is arbitrary. Four examples are intermediate, and are given thus: ‘a farther country’ (2 Esdras 13:41), and ‘no further’ (Job 40:5; 1 Esdras 2:29; 2 Tim. 3:9). The following words (or nearly related words) are also given in two forms because of a possible difference of meaning or use: aware wary (from ‘ware’) born borne cleaved cleft (from ‘clave’) clothes cloths endowed endued flee fly naught nought O Oh outmost utmost outermost uttermost Finally, here are two obsolete words, each used once, which test the edges of these guidelines: ‘straited’ and ‘submissly’. ‘Straited’ is nowmodernised to ‘straitened’, but ‘submissly’ is retained by Cambridge and Oxford, whereas ABS changes it to ‘submissively’. Susannah cries, ‘I am straited on euery side: for if I doe this thing, it is death vnto me: and if I doe it not, I can- not escape your hands’ (v. 22). Susannah is obviously in dire straits, but is she narrowed as ‘the breadth of the waters is straitned’ (Job 37:10)? Per- haps, but the sense is less sharp and immediate. ‘Strait’ and ‘straiten’ are obviously related, but they are two separate verbs, and again the value of preserving genuine forms is shown. Onthe other hand, both‘submissly’ and ‘submissively’ are forms of one word ‘submiss’. The choice here is between an archaic and a modern form with no difference of sense. Consequently the text can become ‘for his neighbour’s money he will speak submissively’ (Ecclus. 29:5). 140 A Textual History of the King James Bible The tendency of these guidelines is towards the preservation of archaisms that might otherwise be modernised. Except for ‘bewray’, I have discussed examples that involve changes to the current text, but there are a number of other words that fall under these guidelines where nochange is made because the old, better reading has never been changed. The following archaic or obsolete words have been retained though they might be modernised under looser principles; I give the possible modernisation in brackets: affright (frighten) afore (before) ‘Before’ is 1611’s preferred form, but ‘afore’ remains a possible form (see OED). agone (ago) 1 Sam 30:13. Elsewhere, including identical contexts, 1611 has ‘ago[e]’. The majority of the earlier versions, including 1602, have ‘agone’, showing it is not a 1611 error. It is generally taken as genuine, and cited in OED. Moreover, it has an oral or dialectal character that may be deliberately used for this young man from Egypt (contrast Samuel at 1 Sam. 9:20). band (bond) 1611 sometimes uses ‘band’ and ‘bond’ interchangeably, sometimes perhaps with a distinction between figurative and literal senses. betime (betimes) Bel 16. Elsewhere 1611 has ‘betimes’. OEDtreats themas separate words, marking ‘betime’ obsolete but not ‘betimes’. However, both appear to be similarly archaic. betwixt (between) ‘Betwixt’ is still a possible, distinct word, as in the phrase ‘betwixt and between’. bide (abide) Remains a possible form, though its compound, ‘abide’ is 1611’s commoner form. dureth (endureth) Matt. 13:21. Inconsistent with ‘endure’ at Mark 4:17, and not 1611’s normal form, but a compound is taken to be a different word. endamage (damage) Though OED gives two senses as current, it is prob- ably wrong, but again a compound is involved. fat (fatten) Ecclus. 26:13. The familiar ‘fatten’ would probably obscure the sense, which is ‘to anoint’. grave (engrave) Closely related but different words that are interchange- able in the text, but sometimes the translators appear to play them off against each other, as in Exod. 28:36: ‘and thou shalt make a plate of pure gold, and graue upon it, like the engrauings of a signet’, and Zech. 3:9: ‘I will engraue the grauing thereof’. inhabiters (inhabitants) Slightly odd but possible English, presenting no problem of comprehension. in sunder (asunder) Slightly odd but possible English, presenting no problem of comprehension. Variants and orthography 141 inwards (innards) OED describes ‘innards’ as ‘dial. and vulgar alteration of inwards . . . “entrails” ’. leasing (lying) Though 1611 uses ‘lying’ commonly, there is no evidence that the two are variant spellings of one word. magnifical (magnificent) Johnson’s observation seems right: ‘proper, but little used’ (seventh edition). minish (diminish) Another compound. neesings (nostrils) Different word. plat (plot) 2 Kgs 9:26. The translators may have judged the sense of flat ground in ‘plat’ to be appropriate here for ¬äm]. Other guidelines The guidelines involving meaning affect only a few words, but those that follow relate to all the words: 4. ignore changes of sound; 5. do not change grammatical forms; 6. leave unchanged free variations that are still possible in modern English; 7. be consistent; 8. when no solution is perfect, make a decision and stick to it. The first of these, to ignore changes of sound, is a direct consequence of the argument that the spelling of the first edition did not define sound. 6 One cannot be sure whether ‘murderer’ was pronounced ‘murtherer’ or vice versa, or whether people said ‘a half’ or ‘an half’. Therefore, as with other modernised texts, one should not be bound by what appear to be definitions of sound embodied in 1611 spellings. Further, this liberty from assumptions about sound extends to the number of syllables in words. The addition of an extra syllable to ‘submissly’ may have troubled some readers, but English is full of inconsistencies and changes as to how many sylla- bles there are in a word. ‘Known’ never appears in the 1611 text (‘knowne’ appears in the genealogies, which are not a genuine part of the text): 7 it 6 As Wells writes of Shakespeare, ‘it is no part of our aim to enable the reader to reconstruct an Elizabethan pronunciation of the texts’ (p. 5). 7 The forty pages of genealogies, ‘An Alphabeticall Table of Canaan’ and the map of Canaan preceding Genesis in the early editions ‘were compiled by John Speed . . . the historian, apparently at the suggestion, and with the assistance, of Hugh Broughton . . . the eminent Hebraist . . . Speed obtained a patent for ten years, dated 31 Oct. 1610, giving him the right to print and insert them in every edition of the new version of the Bible. Speed’s prices were fixed: large folio, two shillings; small folio, eighteen pence; quarto, twelve pence; octavo, six pence . . . Thus, though they really formed no part of the book, the Genealogies and Map are generally found in copies of the early editions of King James’ Bible.’ (Herbert, p. 132) 142 A Textual History of the King James Bible is always ‘knowen’; conversely, ‘knowen’ never appears in the current text, even though some people pronounce it with two syllables (this is a char- acteristic of New Zealand English that sounds strange to English or Amer- ican ears). Such examples make it impossible to have a guideline to the effect that no change should be made to the number of syllables in a word, even though such a guideline would appear to respect the rhythms of the text. If it is legitimate to regularize ‘murtherer’ to ‘murderer’ because ‘mur- derer’ is the modern spelling, it is also legitimate to change ‘submissly’ to ‘submissively’. The indefinite article, ‘my/mine’ ‘thy/thine’ and ‘no/none’ in front of aspirates come under this guideline. ‘A’ (etc.) is used except before ‘heir’, ‘honest’, ‘honour’ and ‘hour’. Spellings that perhaps consistently preserve the accent of the times but do not correspond to modern spelling or pronunciation equally follow this guideline. One large group of these is past tenses and participles. Some, like ‘burned’ and ‘burnt’ have two forms, both of which remain possible in modern English, as OED notes: the distinction in usage between the two modern forms of the pa. t. and pa. pple. is difficult to state with precision. Burnt is now the prevailing form, and its use is always permissible; burned is slightly archaic, and somewhat more formal in effect; it occurs more frequently as pa. t., or in combination with the auxiliary have than as ppl. adj. The situation was much the same in 1611. ‘Burnt’ is the first edition’s pre- dominant form (534 to 25), but ‘burned’ is used both as a past tense and as a past participle, and the two forms occur in adjacent verses at Lev. 8:16, 17, Josh. 11:11, 13 andEzek. 15:4, 5 (something that cannot always be accounted for by the needs of space, for twice the wordoccurs ina short line at the endof a verse, once in each form). Following the guideline of consistency (a guide- line that, as will be seen, has exceptions), one formshouldbe settledon, espe- cially as having the two forms adjacent to each other looks wrong, so what is both 1611’s and the present’s commoner form is used, ‘burnt’. Others have only one form, such as ‘spake’ and ‘begat’, and these are the ones that seemto preserve the accent – or, if one prefers, the special English – of the time. They are generallyleft unchangedinthe current text. However, vowels are as muta- ble as consonants in both spellings and accents, and should be treated in the same way, or the spelling is left half-modernised. Tochange ‘spake’ to‘spoke’ is a change of spelling of the same sort as changing ‘murtherer’ to ‘murderer’. Finally, as well as removing visual difficulties in the text, this treatment of verb forms sometimes conforms with the guideline of making choices that best preserve meaning. ‘Sod’ is rarely understood in ‘and Iacob sod pottage’ Variants and orthography 143 (Gen. 25:29), but ‘seethed’, now the past of ‘seethe’, makes clear what the verb is. 8 This problem of vowels is, as I have suggested, most noticeable in past tenses and participles, and this leads to the distinction involved in guideline 5, that grammatical forms should not be changed. ‘Spake’ can be changed to ‘spoke’, but ‘shalt’ cannot be changed to ‘shall’ because, like the ‘-est’ and ‘-eth’ endings, it is part of a particular verb form. One possible form of modernisation would be to change ‘thou shalt not kill’ to ‘you shall not kill’, but this is achangetothecharacter of thelanguagerather thantoits perceived sound. Besides a change of form, ‘shalt’ to ‘shall’, it involves a change of word ‘thou’ to ‘you’, which goes against the guidelines already discussed. Fundamentally it comes to this: the language of the KJB, as embodied in the spelling, can be modernised, but it cannot be translated. If ‘thou shalt not kill’ can be changed to ‘you shall not kill’ because it is an archaic form, then archaic words can be given modern substitutes, and a new translation emerges. One of the more teasing issues of modernisation involves ‘you’ and ‘ye’. Is the distinction between themgrammatical or orthographical? If the former, they cannot be changed, if the latter, they can. Their history both within the KJB and outside shows that they are a mix of both. Discussing Parris and Blayney’s modifications to the text I noted that ‘ye’ was usually the sub- ject form, ‘you’ the object, but that there were enough contrary examples and local inconsistencies to prove that, in practice, the two words are free variations of each other. The first edition has a predominant practice but not a fixed rule. Parris and Blayney tried to regularise, both following that predominant practice and conforming to their contemporaries’ grammat- ical prescriptions, but they did not fully succeed. Moreover, they changed 289 instances of what is nowthe normal modern form, ‘you’ as nominative, to the archaic form ‘ye’. A modernising editor has three choices, the first two of which are to complete the eighteenth-century regularisation or to discard ‘ye’ in favour of ‘you’. The first would enshrine an archaic form that does not conform to modern usage, but might be justified as fitting with the first edition’s preference were there not so many exceptions. The second, regularising to ‘you’, might well work but for two things: ‘ye’ is a distinctive characteristic of the KJB’s English (in itself too loose and subjective a crite- rion to be proposed generally), and such a move would raise questions of consistency: if ‘ye’ is to disappear, what happens to ‘thee’ and ‘thou’? Would not the same move that eliminates ‘ye’ also lead to altering ‘thee’ and ‘thou’ 8 Here I differ from Wells: ‘sometimes the form of the control-text represents an inflection now obsolete in standard English, e.g. . . . mistook (p.p. for mistaken) . . . I should not alter these, as they are genuine forms, not variant spellings’ (p. 7). 144 A Textual History of the King James Bible totheir modernequivalent ‘you’? Because of the difficulties withthe first two choices, a third seems more satisfactory: to restore the original text in spite of its inconsistency, and this is what has been done. With an inconsistency far fromunique in the English language, this allows ‘you’ and ‘ye’ to be both separate words and two forms of the same word. Neither fully a matter of grammar nor of orthography, ‘ye’ and ‘you’ are best left untouched. The result is that, as so often, The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible reads exactly as the first edition read. Effectively, another guideline is involved here, that changes to the 1611 text which run counter to modern usage should be rejected. This will prove helpful with the punctuation. One of the grammatical inconsistencies of 1611 is the use of the modern third person singular in five places in the Apocrypha: 1 Esdras 4:21, Ecclus. 22:2, 44:12, Baruch6:9 and21. Blayney changedfour of these tothe standard ‘. . . eth’ ending, but missed Ecclus. 22:2, so it stands in the current text as the one modern example, ‘every man that takes it up’. One could make the final correction, but, as with the modern uses of ‘you’, it seems inappropriate to insert archaic forms into a modernised edition, and better to respect 1611’s grammatical choices and so to tolerate inconsistency. Possessives also relate to the guideline of preserving grammatical forms, but are better thought of as orthographical rather than grammatical forms. 1611 sometimes uses ‘his’ or ‘her’ following a noun, as in ‘Asa his heart’ (1 Kgs 15:14) but usually has the modern form. All examples were long ago modernised. The rightness of this is obvious in relation to ‘his’: ‘Asa’s’ both represents how ‘Asa his’ would have been said and, by using the apostrophe, indicates the missing letters. For consistency the same has to be done with ‘her’, and this is what 1611 usually does. If possessives are regularised to modern usage, should the same be done with possessive pronouns? ‘Its’ barely existed in the translators’ time, so, with one exception, ‘his’ is used for the neuter. The exception is ‘that which groweth of it owne accord’ (Lev. 25:5). Having regularised possessives, it would be inconsistent here not to retain the modern ‘its’, introduced in 1660. But, having done this, should one also change the archaic ‘his’ for the neuter possessive pronoun in ‘the yron gate . . . which opened to them of his owne accord’ (Acts 12:10)? The likeness of the two phrases suggests one should, but clearly the translators had a choice, and chose the old word rather than the new word. To change ‘Asa his’ to ‘Asa’s’ is not to change words, but to change ‘his’ to ‘its’ crosses the line between modernisation and translation. The archaic ‘his’ has to stay in such contexts. Guideline 6 is to leave unchanged free variations that are still possible in modern English. Sometimes two forms of a word co-exist as easily in modern English as they did in 1611: they still vary freely. Both ‘among’ and ‘amongst’ are good English forms of one word: to choose between them Variants and orthography 145 would not be to modernise but to try to legislate to the English language. In the first edition, ‘among’ is used ten times as often as ‘amongst’. Parris left well alone, but Blayney regularised to ‘among’, characteristically missing two early examples (Gen. 3:8; 23:9); these remain in the current text. To illustrate the difficulties of this kind of work in the days before computers, it is worthnoting that Scrivener attemptedtorestore ‘amongst’ but failedmore frequentlythanhis scornedpredecessor. The NewCambridge ParagraphBible restores all ninety-five uses of ‘amongst’, again reading exactly as the first edition read. Other pairs of this sort that have been restored are ‘especial’ and ‘special’, ‘girded’ and ‘girt’, ‘lade’ and ‘load’, ‘oft times’ and ‘often times’, ‘some time’ and ‘sometimes’, and words ending ‘. . . ward(s)’. The preservation of these alternative forms fits with the use of different forms (‘beside/besides’) where a distinction of sense is involved. The penultimate guideline, to be consistent, is, as the discussion has made obvious, not a rule to choose a single spelling where more than one is possible (as, for instance, Blayney often did). Rather, it is an injunction to think consistently, testing decisions made in one situation by those made in another. How successfully it has been followed – how consistently the delicate line between caution and boldness has been trodden – is for others to judge. The final guideline is really a comment on such difficulties: when no solution is perfect, make a decision and stick to it. Many of the decisions are so delicate that a different decision could have been made with as much justification. All that can be said in the end is that decisions have been researched and agonised over, and that it did not always prove possible to stick to a decision; even at the proof stage a few seemed wrong and were changed. Finally, reviewing the changes, especially the hairline decisions, I am aware that there may have been an unconscious guideline to make choices that best serve the meaning, as when ‘occurrence’ is given for ‘occurrent’, or ‘astrologers’ for ‘astrologians’. Compound words The treatment of compound (or, possibly compound) words in English remains inconsistent in two ways. First, the same pair may have no settled form, as when OED defines ‘chestnut’ as ‘the wood of the chestnut-tree’ but lists the compoundas ‘chestnut tree’. Second, analogous pairs may be treated differently. More often than not OED puts a hyphen in the trees, but there is no obvious reason why ‘almond tree’ should not be hyphenated when ‘apple-tree’ is. If there is confusion within OED, there is further confusion outside: it may give one form, andanother dictionary another. All this points up how trifling the presentation of compound words is for the most part. Occasionally meaning or stress are involved, but for the most part it matters 146 A Textual History of the King James Bible only to an editor struggling unsuccessfully for rational practice in the face of a part of the language that is not rational. To give one more example, it seemed sensible to treat ‘euery bodies’, ‘euery one’, ‘euery thing’ and ‘euery where’ identically. OED defines ‘every one’ (two words) as ‘everybody’ (one word) and notes, ‘sometimes written as one word’. Of ‘everything’ it notes, ‘formerly written as two words; this is now rare, exc. where the two words are used without modification of sense’. Rationally, it seemed that each should be given as one word, but OED’s discriminations turned out to be right: ‘everybody’s’, ‘everything’, and ‘everywhere’ were fine, but too often ‘everyone’ seemed wrong because of its implicitly plural sense. Moreover, if some examples seemed right as one word (‘people’) and some right as two (‘each individual’), there were many more that were totally indifferent. Eventually ‘every one’ was chosen because it worked in all contexts, whereas ‘everyone’ did not. Several considerations were kept in mind: the evidence of OED, treated with more scepticismthan usual, the practice of 1611, analogy, and whether one or two words were involved in the original. The resulting changes to the current text are given in the second part of Appendix 9. Names As observed earlier in relation to the evidence from MS 98 and the spelling of ‘Apollos/Apollo’ (p. 33), names mix principles and problems of spelling with those of textual scholarship. They are therefore treated as variants, and information on them is given in Appendix 8. The second rule for the translation was to retain names ‘as near as may be, accordingly as they are vulgarly used’. Froma modernperspective, the trans- lators appear tohave beennegligent infollowing this rule, but the difficulties they faced were enormous, and their efforts may well have been compro- mised by the work of the printer. The difficulties included the variety found in the originals: there not only do names have a variety of spellings in one language, but they also exist in several languages, and so take further forms. Above this was the general difficulty of maintaining consistency within such an enormous text in the absence of good concordances and without the benefit of modern electronics. Subsequent editors, even the redoubtable and acerbic Scrivener, have all shown human frailty in their attempts to per- fect the work, so the calm assumption of superiority involved in charging the translators with negligence in following this rule is unwarranted. It was an impossible rule. Many of the inconsistencies of 1611 still remain. ‘Timotheus’ and ‘Tim- othy’ still exist sometimes on the same page in the text (2 Cor. 1:1 and 19, the header and colophon at the end of 2 Timothy). We could couple Variants and orthography 147 the translators’ second rule with the guidelines for modernisation, and use ‘Timothy’ throughout, but matters of textual scholarship and of translitera- tion have to be considered. Might ‘Timotheus’ be the translators’ preferred form under rule 2? Certainly it is their consistent form in the Apocrypha, and used more than twice as often in the NT. Or might the translators have been indifferent? Or, a third possibility, might ‘Timothy’ have been their preferred form? Their model, the 1602 text, has ‘Timotheus’ until 1 Timo- thy is reached (except for the summary to Acts 16), but then ‘Timothy’ with a few reversions to ‘Timotheus’. As if liberated by this, the translators use ‘Timothie’ from this point on except for the colophon to 2 Timothy where 1602’s ‘Timotheus’ creeps back in. The same shift in spelling is found in MS 98. ‘Timothy’ appears to have been the final choice, but we cannot assert this with any great certainty. ‘Timothy’ is used in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible throughout the NT because it is the familiar, ‘vulgarly used’ form, and because the arguments for it are at least as good as the arguments against (there seems to be no good argument for retaining a baseless inconsistency). However, the often different form of names in the Apocrypha and the consistent use there of ‘Timotheus’ dictated the retention of this form in the Apocrypha. ‘Timothy’ is a familiar name consistently presented in the Greek. The dif- ficulties are greater with unfamiliar names such as ‘Chinnereth/Cinneroth/ Cinnereth’, as it appears in 1611, or ‘Chinnereth/Chinneroth/Cinnereth’ as it appears in the current text (see Josh. 11:2 in Appendix 8). There are three variant spellings inthe Hebrew. The translators conformedthe final vowel to the Hebrewbut were inconsistent intheir transliterationof the opening con- sonant. What they clearly didnot do was compare one instance withanother for consistency. Later editors have agreed with the translators about the final vowel, but regularised the opening consonant – save for their oversight at 1 Kgs 15:20. The five variations on ‘Malchiah’ in 1611 and two in the current text (see appendix8, 1Chr. 6:40) have a different aspect because a varietyof characters are involved, all of them given identically in the Hebrew. Alternate spellings in close proximity, especially Ezra 10:25 (1611: ‘and Malchiah, and Miamin, and Eleazar, and Malchijah’), make it probable that the translators wished to indicate that different figures were involved (as if they were dealing with a dozen John Smiths, so elected to spell some of them John Smith and some JohnSmyth, but some, accidentally, JonSmith). Sometimes, as inEzra 10:25, it is possible to followthe translators’ example; this practice parallels the use of distinct spellings such as ‘beside’ and ‘besides’ to reflect distinctions of meaning. As ‘Chinnereth/Cinneroth/Cinnereth’ shows, the translators chose to reflect varieties of spellingintheoriginal rather thantrytocreateaconsistent, customary form. Fidelity to the original mattered more than conformity to 148 A Textual History of the King James Bible rule 2. One obvious consequence contrasts with the treatment of ‘Malchiah’, the different spellings of names for the same people when the text changes language. Inconsistency in the name of fidelity was the translators’ genuine rule of practice. Consequently The NewCambridge Paragraph Bible does not attempt such regularisation, and the reader must still equate, for instance, Esaias in the NT with Isaiah in the OT. Conclusion The overall effect of these changes is to remove all unnecessary appearances of oddness in the Bible’s English without changing the English itself. Indeed, the translators’ English is more truly respected than in any other edition. Allied with the respect given to the translators’ own understanding of the text where there are variant readings, the new edition is the most faithful presentation of the King James Bible there has ever been. 9 Punctuation and other matters The original punctuation In George Eliot’s Middlemarch Mrs Cadwallader tartly remarks of the age- ing scholar Casaubon that when a drop of his blood was placed under a magnifying-glass ‘it was all semi-colons and parentheses’ (chapter 8). Per- haps this suggests his contorted prose, but the association of punctuation with the lifeless extremes of futile scholarship is inescapable. I suspect that a full study of the punctuation of the KJB would take a lifetime, and, like Casaubon’s flawed ‘Key to all Mythologies’, be frustrated by an early grave. I will therefore deal only briefly with the history before surveying the prob- lems punctuation raises and the solutions adopted in the new edition. This is not to say that punctuation does not matter: of course it does. The greatest ever work of punctuation – or pointing – was done by the Masoretic scholars on the OT. They devised a way of marking the unpunctuated, consonantal Hebrew words so that their knowledge of that text’s traditional sound and sense was recorded without any change being made to the sacred text itself. Faithful to their belief in its inviolability, neither a jot nor a tittle of the text was changed, yet their religion and its language were preserved. We may use this reminder of Masoretic pointing tosuggest a larger under- standing of punctuation than our usual sense that it is the application of punctuation marks to a piece of writing. Punctuation is the art of presenting the basic letters of a text so as to bring out for the reader their characteristics, whether of soundor meaning or structure. It canrange fromthe provisionof spaces between words and the distinction between capital and small letters throughthe ordinary punctuationmarks, andother marks suchas accents or musical notation, to the creation of paragraphs and chapters. It may include all the elements of typography and design. It is worth remembering that the distinction between punctuation marks and the use of space on a page can be quite artificial. So most editions of the KJB use a mark, the paraph (¶), to denote the beginning of a paragraph, whereas common practice now is to use spacing and indentation. Similarly, poetic lines can be marked either by presentation as separate lines on the page, or by the use of a mark such as the slash. All the elements of page and book design can be thought of as punctuation, even if some of them are not intended to have any effect on the reading. Verse division, for instance, is a reference system, yet it exerts a strong influence on how the text is read. 150 A Textual History of the King James Bible Almost nothing in the way of punctuation was available to the original writers of the Bible, so the punctuation now found in Bibles is, like transla- tion, interpretive. Moreover, it may be interpretive in ways that the original writers might not haveunderstood. Ancient writers didnot necessarilystruc- ture their writing in the ways we think all writing is structured, nor did they necessarily mean what our punctuation interprets them as meaning. This should not be made into an argument against punctuation; rather, it is a warning about the limitations of what is now not just an inescapable but an essential practice. Without theorising here on the authority of the words themselves – how they represent the original thought or inspiration of the writers, or how much they may have been through an editorial process – I want simply to make the point that, as far as the original language texts are concerned, all the elements of punctuation are a later addition and therefore are not authoritative. They do not have the power of the author; they are all open to question. Now, the same may be true to some degree for the punctuation of the KJB, and this is crucial for understanding both the historical and the present punctuation – in the wide sense that includes presentation – of the text. An example that demonstrates what ought not to need demonstration, the importance of punctuation, will begin to make the point. Sometimes even life or death can hang on punctuation, as at 1 Macc. 5:13. In 1611 wives and children die: Yea all our brethren that were in the places of Tobie, are put to death, their wiues and their children; Also they haue caried away captiues, and borne away their stuffe. But in the current text the punctuation is different, and they live: Yea, all our brethren that were in the places of Tobie are put to death: their wives and their children also they have carried away captives, and borne away their stuff. Punctuation obviously controls meaning, but what directly relates to the authority of the KJB’s punctuation here is that we can be reasonably sure that the translators themselves did not create this 1611 punctuation. The Greek is unambiguous: the wives and children have been carried away, not killed, so the punctuation cannot have been created through reference to the original, that is, during the process of translation. It has to be the work of someone working without reference to the original, having an eye only to making sense of the unpunctuated English words the translators left to their amanuenses or to the printer. I suspect the latter. He would have looked at a manuscript change that was like most of those in Bod 1602, unpunctuated, Punctuation and other matters 151 and would have made a quick decision as to how to punctuate it, possibly not even noticing that the text was ambiguous. 1 This example and the lack of punctuation in the Bod 1602 annotations to the OT suggest that the translators often omitted to deal with punctu- ation, and that we cannot put the same trust in the punctuation of the first edition that we give to its words. Given the importance of punctua- tion for sense (something the translators were well aware of and certainly did attend to on occasion) 2 and the reverence for every jot and tittle of the text, this might seemsurprising, but we need to remember that punctuation was as unfixed as spelling in the early seventeenth century. If the printer could vary spelling as it suited him, perhaps he could do the same with punctuation. 3 This point must not be pressed too hard. Other examples might be read as representing authoritative decisions. In Ps. 42:9, for example, the first edition goes against the 1602 reading and most modern versions in making ‘my rock’ part of what is said: ‘I will say vnto God, My rocke, why hast thou forgotten me?’ This sense and the commoner alternative represented in the received text’s ‘I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me?’ are both possible renderings of the Hebrew. The text and the manuscript changes in Bod 1602 do not settle the responsibility for the reading. The 1602 text reads, ‘I will say vnto the God of my strength, Why hast thou forgotten me’. ‘The’, ‘of ’ and ‘strength’ are struck through, and ‘rocke’ is substituted for ‘strength’. As usual in the annotations there is no indication of punctuation. This may have left the punctuation to be created as the text was being printed, but the very clarity of the 1602 text, with its capitalisation of ‘Why’, suggests that the decisiontostart the speechearlier was a deliberate, a critical decision, one taken by the translators. I suggest therefore that the original punctuation does not have the same authority as its words, but that, where variant readings are concerned, it can only be departed from if 1 He would have found no help in the underlying 1602 text, for there the wives and children might be dead or alive because of the comma at the key point: ‘yea, and our brethren that were at Tubin are slaine and destroyed, well nigh a thousand men, and their wiues, their children, and their goods haue the enemies ledde away captiue’. 2 Bois notes that AndrewDownes, one of the translators, arguedfor the commonpunctuation of Rom. 11:31, but that the translators adopted Theophylact’s punctuation (Allen, Translat- ing for King James, p. 41). Anumber of the notes might lead to decisions on punctuation, but only two others explicitly mention punctuation; in each case it is a matter of parentheses, and in each case the 1611 text is printed without the parentheses suggested by Bois (notes to Eph. 4:22; 2 Tim. 1:3; Allen, Translating for King James, pp. 61, 71). 3 M. B. Parkes makes the same point more generally: ‘printed punctuation may reflect that of the author, that of the person who prepared copy for the press, that of the compositor, or all three’. With relation to the time of the KJB, he notes that ‘by the 1580s there is clear evidence that compositors were responsible for introducing punctuation marks – especially the semi-colon – to replace others indicated in an author’s copy’ (Parkes, pp. 5, 53). 152 A Textual History of the King James Bible there is strong reason to believe it is an error that was not of the translators’ making. The punctuationof the first editionhas aninconsistency that goes beyond the natural human frailty that leads to the same thing being done differently in well-separated places: as with the inconsistencies of translation and of spelling, punctuation can vary over a series of instances following one after another. For example, the same formulaic sentence structure is used eight times in the first two chapters of Amos. It comes first in this form: 3 Thus sayth the Lord; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for foure I wil not turne away the punishment thereof, because they haue threshed Gilead, with threshing instruments of yron. 4 But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall deuoure the palaces of Benhadad. (Amos 1:3–4) In the seven instances that follow, the opening ‘Thus sayth the Lord’ is followed by a comma. ‘And for foure’ has no punctuation after it in the first three instances, but is followed by a comma in the remaining five. ‘The punishment thereof ’ is followed by a semicolonrather thana comma at 1:13, 2:4 and 6, but not at 2:1. One oddity the modern reader might notice is the full stop at the end of the first verse, even though the next verse appears to continue the sentence. Now, there is often a third verse in the sequence, usually beginning with an ‘and’, again clearly continuing the sentence. In almost all instances, 1611 uses a full stop, but at 2:2 it has a colon. 4 As well as showing inconsistency, this demonstrates how elements of punctuation that we would not normally think of as punctuation do affect punctuation marks and reading. The visual representation of a reference system, verse division, has affected the interpretive systemof punctuationbecause the end of a verse looks and feels like the end of a sentence. 5 The inconsistencies of translation can often be thought of as elegant variations that fit with the preface’s argument against consistent vocabulary; and the inconsistencies of spelling are often the product of the printer’s desire to have a similar amount of type in each line. In each case there is a rational explanation for some if not all of the inconsistency. However, the only explanation for the kind of inconsistency of punctuation that Amos 1 4 The variations are not attributable to the 1602 text, which has its own inconsistencies. 5 For a particularly striking example, see Wisdom 5:9–11. These verses form one sentence, yet each verse concludes with a period. At Acts 21:40 there is a period in the middle of a sentence because the sentence continues across a chapter break. Parkes notes that many scribes through to the fifteenth century placed a punctus at the end of each verse as a kind of extra signal of the prosodic units (p. 102). The KJB’s similar marking of some verses is perhaps a hangover from this practice. Even though the division into verses is solely for reference, it remains a powerful force: I have found it difficult both to make poetic lines run over verse breaks, and to place paragraph breaks within verses. Punctuation and other matters 153 and 2 showis that consistency simply did not matter to the printer (nor, one presumes, to the translators or the readers). The full stopat the endof the verse indicates one other inconsistency inthe original punctuation: it sometimes marks the kind of pauses a reader should make rather than the grammatical or logical relationships of the parts of the writing. In short, it is sometimes rhetorical rather than grammatical. This tendency – it is no more than a tendency since there is often no difference between the two kinds of punctuation – comes out most interestingly in some of the poetry where a colon is used just as colons were used to mark the caesura ina line of verse. Here the first editionaligns itself with a practice found in the Bishops’ Bible and the Douai OT but not generally in the other versions. Further details of the original punctuation are best left to the discussion of the changes made in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Meanwhile, here is a sketch of how the received punctuation developed. The received punctuation Later editors through to Blayney regarded the original punctuation as no more binding than the original spelling: it was freely variable, and, by the time Blayney had finished his work, they had made it relatively consistent and conformable to mid-eighteenth-century standards. Consequently the received text of these instances in Amos follows this pattern: 3 Thus saith the Lord; For three transgressions of Damascus, and for four, I will not turn away the punishment thereof; because they have threshed Gilead with threshing instruments of iron: 4 But I will send a fire into the house of Hazael, which shall devour the palaces of Benhadad. Except at the end of the first verse, the heavier possibilities offered by the first edition are adopted, semicolons rather than commas after ‘the Lord’ and ‘thereof ’, and a comma rather than no punctuation after ‘four’. This is the basic difference between the original and the received punctuation: the latter is relatively consistent and usually – but not always – heavier. The current text, which is, in punctuation as in other aspects, essentially that which was finalised in Blayney’s work, presents seventeenth-century punctuation revised by eighteenth-century standards. I offer the following observations based on an examination of some samples, and with the fur- ther warning that not all the changes necessarily originate in the editions mentioned: they were checked as the likeliest sources of change and as the editions that had most influence on the text. One fifth of the original punc- tuation is revised in some way. A good quarter of the changes appear in 154 A Textual History of the King James Bible the first Cambridge edition of 1629 and are retained with only the slightest modification in the second Cambridge edition of 1638. This is perhaps a surprisingly large proportion given that standards would not have changed much in less than twenty years. Almost another quarter of the changes is present in Parris’s Cambridge edition of 1762, and just over half of them were made by Blayney. The changes in Ruth may be taken as representative. Twenty-three are found in 1629, one in 1638, seven in 1762, and a further forty-eight were made by Blayney. By far the commonest change (over one third) is the removal of commas. This lightens the punctuation in a way that is more fitting to modern standards. Full stops are substituted for colons eight times (two a chapter on average), and the opposite change is made four times. Overall this too lightens things, as does the removal of most of the paren- theses throughout the whole text. The remaining changes all give a heavier, eighteenth-century feel to the text. Occasionally commas are added, usually by Blayney in phrases such as ‘and behold,’, giving the fussy ‘and, behold,’. Fourteen commas become semicolons (3.5 a chapter). Seven semicolons become colons, while the reverse change happens three times. One exclamation mark is added by Blayney (overall, exclamation marks are rare in the original edition, in part because a question mark could serve the same purpose). Such extensive use of heavy or dramatic punctuation, coupled with the verse breaks, makes the current text seem highly fragmented, and is an obstacle to fluent reading. Scrivener offers the following judgement: Upon the whole, while the system of recent punctuation is heavier and more elabo- rate thannecessityrequires, andmight be lightenedtoadvantage, that of the standard of 1611 is too scanty to afford the guidance needed by the voice and eye in the act of public reading. ‘It is a torture to read aloud from, as those who have had to do it know.’ 6 One might add that occasionally both the original and the current punctu- ation are impossible by modern standards, as when they put a comma or a colon before a paragraph break, for example Isa. 1:24 in the current text, where 1611 has a full stop, and, following 1611, Isa. 14:3 and 28:15 (some American texts omit these paragraph marks). I characterised the current punctuation as relatively consistent by com- parison with the original. This is only relative, for it too is, unsurprisingly, inconsistent. The use of a semicolon before speech, as at Amos 1:3, ‘Thus saith the Lord;’, represents a tendency that becomes increasing noticeable in the 1611 OT from Jeremiah onwards, though it never fully takes over from 6 Scrivener, pp. 81–2, citing Professor Grote’s manuscript. Punctuation and other matters 155 the comma. Just as the current text used a semicolon in all the examples in Amos, so it exhibits a strong preference from about Jeremiah 21 onwards for the semicolon. Yet sometimes when the 1611 text has a semicolon, it gives a comma (e.g. Jer. 7:28, having made the opposite change at vv. 20 and 21, similarly at Ezek. 44:5, though by this time the practice of using a semicolon before speech is thoroughly established). It is as if Blayney had become habituated to doing the opposite of 1611. At Amos 7:1, 1611 gives ‘thus hath the Lord God shewed vnto me,’. The current text changes ‘me,’ to ‘me;’. At v. 4 the same phrase in 1611 ends ‘me;’, and the current text ‘me:’. Here stronger punctuation seems to be added mechanically, without awareness that a 1611 inconsistency produces a new inconsistency. Punctuation in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible Commas, semicolons, colons, full stops, question and exclamation marks, parentheses There is no easy and good way of dealing with the KJB’s ordinary punc- tuation marks. The easiest course would be to do nothing to the current punctuation. This is hardly a good solution. The unsatisfactoriness of the current punctuation argues against it, especially as it is the creation of edi- tors who have treated punctuation as freely as they treated spelling. The only thing sacred about this punctuation is that it has not been changed for a quarter of a millennium. At the other extreme from editorial idleness is the difficult task of wholesale revision by modern standards. However difficult, this would be worthwhile, indeed, necessary, if it achieved the following: consistency, faithfulness to the grammatical sense of the 1611 text (perhaps also to its rhetorical structures) and readability. However, having made the experiment with a limited amount of the text, I think the result would be a failure. Standards are flexible and consistency of practice would be unattain- able (a modern editor, helped by computers, can aim at consistent spelling, but is liable to punctuate as fallibly as earlier editors). Moreover, especially in the Epistles, logical punctuationis very difficult. HadPaul beenwriting now, he would have filled his writing with dashes, and such modern informality seems to me unwelcome. 7 A different method is followed in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, choosing between the original and the current punctuation marks, and only 7 Coleridge thought of a different solution, suggesting that if Paul were preparing Romans for the press in his time, ‘his accumulated parentheses would be thrown into notes, or extruded to the margin’ (Table Talk, 15 June 1833; as given in Norton, II, p. 159). 156 A Textual History of the King James Bible varying from these alternatives in the few places where neither is acceptable by modernpractice, or where neither represents the predominant practice of the text. This fits with the principles and guidelines noted earlier. Just as no new changes were made in the text, so no new punctuation is added except where essential. The 1611 text is privileged over the work of editors (even if, as at Dan. 11:18, neither the 1611 nor the current punctuation gives a clear meaning). Here the guideline noted in passing (above, p. 144), to reject changes that run counter to modern usage, comes into its own, because the 1611punctuationfrequently conforms tomodernstandards. The result is an eclectic attempt to maintain a respect for tradition by taking the best of the original andthe current punctuation. At times the result is indistinguishable from another possible principle, that of preferring the original punctuation wherever possible, but the use of a judicious mixture probably produces a better result, that is, a text that reflects as fully as possible the sense and flow of the words, and that can be read as clearly and easily as the words will allow, with a minimal sense of the existence of the punctuation. The best punctuation foregrounds the text meaningfully while seeming to hide itself from notice. The result is closer to the original than to the current punctuation, and is lighter than both. Few of the omitted commas return, many of the semi- colons and colons disappear. Nevertheless, it preserves the clearer sense of the grammatical structures created by the later editors. Sometimes it seems odd but not impossible by modern standards – a situation that may fit with the antiquity of the language. It is also inconsistent in two ways: free choice at an editor’s discretion between alternatives is not a consistent principle, and it does not necessarily lead to identical punctuation in identical situa- tions. Nevertheless, by coupling fidelity to the original with a respect for the established tradition of the text in the light of the way other aspects have been treated, it is generally defensible. Speech Except in non-standard editions, the KJBlacks speech marks (inverted com- mas for the beginning and end of speech are an eighteenth-century inven- tion; see Parkes, p. 59). It indicates the beginning of speech or quotation with a capital letter (a practice first used consistently by the Geneva Bible), but has no method of marking the end. 8 While speech marks are not essen- tial in modern texts, they are generally used because they help readers to navigate their way through a text. Now, the Bible is often more than usually 8 Occasionally it errs, omitting the capital in, among others, Hos. 5:8; 1 Esdras 1:30; 2 Esdras 5:33; 6:1; 10:32; Tobit 11:9; Ecclus. 51:25; 1 Macc. 4:5, 8, 36; 15:28; 2 Macc. 11:27. Punctuation and other matters 157 complex in its use of speech, so speech marks are particularly desirable. One might think it an easy, if large, task to supply them, especially as the task has been done before in texts of the KJB such as The Reader’s Bible, and in moderntranslations. However, sometimes it is not clear where speeches end, sometimes the text slips between direct and indirect speech, and sometimes, especially in the prophets, it is unclear where distinct speeches begin and end. 9 Anyone supplying speech marks is therefore engaged in interpreta- tion, narrowing down two or even several possibilities to just one. Readers should stay alert to possibilities in the text that have been, apparently, ruled out by the need to punctuate. Because the Bible frequently has multiple layers of speech, the speech marks can become fussy. Exod. 8:1 is characteristic: And the Lord spake vnto Moses, Goe vnto Pharaoh, and say vnto him; Thus sayeth the Lord, Let my people goe, that they may serue me. There are three layers of direct speech here, each indicated by a capital letter. This is the logical result (with the spelling modernised): And the Lord spoke unto Moses, ‘Go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, “Thus saith the Lord, ‘Let my people go, that they may serve me’”’. One might like to stop at two sets of quotation marks, as does The Reader’s Bible, but this is untrue to the KJB’s sense of the text and hard to reconcile withmoments where Moses does tell Pharaohwhat God has said: there what was the third layer of speech becomes the second, and so does get its own quotation marks in editions that stop at two sets of quotation marks: And Moses and Aaron came in unto Pharaoh, and said unto him, ‘Thus saith the Lord God of the Hebrews, “How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me.”’ (Exod. 10:3) The fussiness of multiple quotationmarks is therefore necessary. 10 It belongs to the peculiar nature of the text with its predilection for direct speech, and it is consistent with the KJB’s use of capitalisation to indicate new speech. Paragraphing The idea of a paragraph – a coherent unit usually based on a single idea and having some sort of logical relationship with the surrounding units – was 9 For example, Isa. 45:1–2 and Acts 17:3. ‘Saith the Lord’ is sometimes problematic. Usually it indicates speech, but sometimes, as in Isa. 59:20, it indicates that the words are the Lord’s message rather than his direct speech. 10 Some examples of particularly complex speech-within-speech: Jer. 27:2–11; 29:24–8; 42:13ff.; Zech 1:1–6. 158 A Textual History of the King James Bible not available to most of the biblical writers. Moreover, especially in the Hebrew, they had few words to indicate logical relationship. This is not to say that they wrote incoherently but simply that their writing does not necessarily divide easily into paragraphs, and that to present it inparagraphs is sometimes to falsify it. In these circumstances it is not surprising that translators frequently disagree about paragraphing. Nor is it surprising that the KJB translators seem to have given it very low priority, apparently leaving it too late for completion. Until Scrivener in Victorian times, editors have not bothered with it, leaving the paragraphing of the current text in the same unfinished, rough state as the first edition. 11 New paragraphing is needed. Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible and other non-standard texts appear underparagraphed by modern standards, and so not sensible to take as models. The variety in the modern translations makes it difficult to follow any one of them, especially as their solutions do not always fit the KJB. Consequently, I have re-paragraphed the text, paying particular attentiontothefirst edition, guidedbyother editions andversions, but chiefly guided by my own sense of the text. Only dialogue is given in a way that is biblical rather than modern: individual pieces of speech are not automatically given individual paragraphs as would happen in most novels. Excuse is needed since this probably should have been done, and the excuse is twofold: this is what is still done in most versions, and it saves space (often an important consideration in Bible presentation, placing care for the printer’s purse ahead of care for the reader’s eyes). Prose, verses and poetry Prose is presented continuously rather than in verses since the practice of starting a newverse on a newline is one of the greatest barriers to a coherent reading of the Bible, splitting the text into small units only for convenience in finding references. 12 Poetry is more of a problem. In the originals it is not always clear what is poetry and what is prose. Nor is it always clear where lines end or whether there is something like stanza form present. There is often no scholarly consensus on either matter, and this is reflected in the variety of practice in modern editions and translations. The most obvious formal quality of the Hebrew poetry is what Robert Lowth in the eighteenth century christened parallelism, a repetition of the meaning or form of one statement in the 11 Sometimes it maybe worse thanrough. Paragraphingbyinsertingmarks is more susceptible to error than paragraphing by layout. To take two possible examples, the break at Ezek. 20:5 and the lack of a break at 22:17 are both very odd. 12 The point was well made by John Locke; see Norton, II, pp. 38–9. Punctuation and other matters 159 next. Lowth argued that ‘a poem translated literally from the Hebrew into the prose of any other language, whilst the same forms of the sentences remain, will still retain, even as far as relates to versification, much of its native dignity, and a faint appearance of versification’ (I, p. 71). The KJB is just such a translation, prose that often has a faint appearance of versification. With one exception, there is nothing to suggest that the KJB translators thought of their work on, say, the Psalms, as being poetic. Had they attempted to make a poetic translation, the result would probably have been like the Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, metrical, rhymed and less close to the meaning and expression of the Hebrew. The translators had no idea of free verse. They must frequently have recognised that they were translating poetry, but they did not translate it as poetry. Consequently, to present their work as poetry is a kind of falsification undertaken to indicate an important quality in the originals – but not a total falsification because of the faint appearance of versification. So I have sought to bring out that faint appearance without making too much of it, making obeisance to the Hebrew shaping behind the English by using what look like verse lines, but otherwise thinking of the English as prose. 13 So there is lineation, but no attempt to make the poetry stanzaic or even, with one exception, to suggest that one line might be subordinate to its predecessor through the use of indentation. As a quiet suggestion of the prosaic aspects of the poetry in the KJB, capital letters are only used for new lines where the new line is also a new sentence. The policy is one of minimum interference, allowing the reader to think of the text as poetry but not dictating howits structure might work beyond applying a kind of paragraphing to it. In places the result simply looks like unjustified prose, as if the line ends are dictated by nothing more than a rough sense of howlong a line of poetry usually is – a situation that readers of modern translations will have encoun- tered. But oftenthe appearance of versificationworks well, responding tothe clear parallelism of the sense units. Moreover, the caesura-like use of colons in parts of the first edition, especially the second half of Psalms and the early chapters of Wisdom, indicates a consciousness of poetic form, either on the translators’ or the compositor’s part, and it gives clear directions to an editor. These colons are the equivalent of a line break. 14 For example: 13 The reader who would like more done might go to R. G. Moulton’s The Modern Reader’s Bible (1895 etc.). This extraordinary and often illuminating work is now very difficult to find. Easier to find is Moulton’s The Literary Study of the Bible (1895; 2nd edn., 1899); see Norton, II, pp. 276–85. 14 The question of whether an awareness of poetic form influenced the way the translators worked is still unexamined. A good case can be made that the phrasing of modern transla- tions is influenced by the consciousness of the poetic lines that their work will be presented in, but I suspect that the KJB translators continued to work as prose translators. To take one example, Ezek. 31:9: literally translated, it reads, ‘beautiful have I made it by many its 160 A Textual History of the King James Bible Thou makest darknesse, and it is night: wherein all the beasts of the forrest doe creepe forth. The young lyons roare after their pray: and seeke their meate from God. The sunne ariseth, they gather themselues together: and lay them downe in their dennes. (Ps. 104:20–2) In grammatical or logical punctuation the central colons might disappear. In the last verse, which describes what animals do as a consequence of the dawn, one might even swap the places of the colon and the comma to give a more logical result: ‘the sun ariseth: they gather themselves together, and lay them down in their dens’. 1611’s rhetorical punctuation of these verses is in effect an editorial guide, showing where the line breaks should be. Besides minimum interference, the other principle is as elsewhere, one of respect for the work of the translators. I have made line breaks following their (or the printer’s) use of rhetorical colons regardless of whether this corresponds to critical ideas of the Hebrew poetry. Elsewhere I have worked as with paragraphing, attending to the work of others but giving priority to my own sense of how the KJB works. As with the other elements of punctuation, there is oftenno single right answer: the best that canbe hoped for is that the results do not mislead but rather that they unobtrusively aid the reading of the text. The one part of the text where extra indentation is used is Prov. 10:1–22: 16. This consists entirely of two-part sayings that respond felicitously to the traditional presentation in biblical verses, especially if a hanging indent as for poetry is used: 1 Wine is a mocker, strong drinke is raging: and whosoever is deceiued thereby, is not wise. 2 The feare of a king, is as the roaring of a Lion: who so prouoketh him to anger, sinneth against his owne soule. 3 It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but euery foole will be meddling. (Prov. 20:1–3) branches, and envied it all the trees of Eden that were in the garden of God’. The slightly loose parallelism depends on ‘envied it’ coming early in the second part. Modern transla- tions using poetic form preserve this order by changing ‘envied it’ into a noun, as in The Jerusalem Bible: I had made it lovely with branching green. It was the envy of every tree in Eden, in the garden of God. The KJB, unconstrained by a sense of parallelism, translates more literally, but places the verb where English prose would have it: ‘I haue made him faire by the multitude of his branches: so that all the trees of Eden, that were in the garden of God, enuied him.’ Punctuation and other matters 161 Successful as this might be, it is inconsistent with the lineation adopted elsewhere, which requires that each verse be two lines. Consequently I have followed the Jerusalem Bible: 1 Wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging: and whosoever is deceived thereby is not wise. 2 The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: whoso provoketh him to anger sinneth against his own soul. 3 It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool will be meddling. This way the second part of the proverb appears as a consequence or qualification of the first part, and each proverb is distinct from the next. The reader should perceive the proverbs primarily as individual entities while being kept aware that there is an element of poetic form. There is a clear distinction between proverbs of this sort and the rest of the text. Perhaps more contentious than the lineation are the decisions as to what to present as poetry. I have looked for two things: that the original probably was poetry, and that it aids the reading of the KJB to have it so presented. The early chapters of Jeremiah illustrate the problems involved. Sometimes ch. 1 is given entirely as prose. Among the translations that give part of it as poetry, one chooses vv. 5, 7–8 and 9b–10, another vv. 5 and 15b–16, a third just vv. 14–19, and a fourth all of these, vv. 5, 7–8, 9b–10, 14–19. In the KJB the first four verses are prose, v. 5 is strongly poetic, and the rest somewhat heightened prose, so in The NewCambridge Paragraph Bible just v. 5 is given as poetry. Chapter 2 is usually given as poetry with minor exceptions. In the KJB the first part of the chapter goes quite well as poetry, but vv. 16–17, then 20 to the end, resist poetic divisions to varying degrees. However, poetry still dominates, so the whole chapter is given as poetry. Chapter 4 slides between poetry and heightened prose. Verse 31 exempli- fies the complexities: for I haue heard a voice as of a woman in travel, and the anguish as of her that bringeth foorth her first childe, the voice of the daughter of Zion, that bewaileth her selfe, that spreadeth her hands, saying; Woe is me now, for my soule is wearied because of murderers. This begins with parallel statements that go readily as verse, but the latter part is more like accumulative prose. The first two statements, save that ‘for I have heard’ is not repeated, duplicate each other in formand meaning; but in the latter part there is no regular duplication of form, only smaller paral- lelisms, and the meaning progresses: ‘that bewaileth herself ’ is repeated and 162 A Textual History of the King James Bible elaboratedin‘that spreadethher hands’, followedby ‘saying, Woe is me now’, and then the final explanation of the woe, ‘for my soul is wearied because of murderers’. This is good poetic prose. An editor has – constantly – to decide whether to force such judgements on the reader, or whether to go with the dominant mode. This latter is the usual practice in The New Cam- bridge Paragraph Bible. The reader must be constantly aware that the KJB is a prose translation that often approximates to poetry, and that the edito- rial decisions made do no more than indicate which way it tends. Constant switching between the two modes is avoided as being potentially distracting and as suggesting a greater claim to knowledge as to what is poetry than is possible. The italics These have been a perpetual source of difficulty to editors and bemusement to readers. Few readers now understand that they are almost always an attempt at a scholarly guide to the relationship between the English and the Hebrew and Greek, de-emphasising words that have no equivalent in the original text but that are necessary in English. 15 Nor do they realise how much they have grown over the years. The original italics were thoroughly inadequate, andthe modernproliferationremains anineffective guide tothe original text for the few readers who understand their intention (Strong’s numbers, interlinear and electronic Bibles are all infinitely better guides to the connections). Bemusing, inadequate and ineffective, whether in the original or the current form, the italics only make reading more difficult. 16 Besides tradition, the only grounds for keeping them – and then only in the original form– is that they are the work of the translators, but these are poor reasons. They are not part of the text itself but a way of coding it for study purposes, and their only possible interest nowis as something that might be studied for the very slight suggestion they give of the translators’ sense of the relationships between English and Hebrew and Greek. Consequently they 15 The one obvious exception is 1 John 2:23, where the latter part of the verse is in italics, indicating that it is a late and doubtful addition to the Greek text. Scrivener suggests that 1611’s italics in Judg. 16:2, 20:9 and 1 Cor. 14:10, and a few later introductions (mostly from 1638) may possibly be of this sort (pp. 68–9). 16 Scrivener, who himself made a heroic attempt to render the italics thorough and consistent, is scathing of both the work in 1611, with its ‘undue haste and scarcely venial carelessness’ (p. 63) and in later editions, where the changes ‘have been too unsystematic, too much the work of the moment, executed by too many hands, and on too unsettled principles, to hold out against hostile, or even against friendly criticism’ (p. 71). His detailed notes (pp. 61–81) remain the only study of the italics. Punctuation and other matters 163 are not included in The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible, except, as noted below, in the margin. The margin, headers and chapter summaries Theoriginal margincontained8,422notes of threesorts: moreliteral transla- tions, prefixed by ‘Heb.’, ‘Cald.’ and ‘Gr.’, alternative translations or readings in the original, prefixed by ‘Or’, and miscellaneous information to do with names, currency, and readings (Scrivener, p. 56). Scrivener counts a further 494 such notes added by later editors, notably Parris. For a student of the translators, the original notes have a special interest for what they reveal of their understanding of the text and their practice as translators. A gen- eral reader should also find them valuable for the closer contact they bring with the original texts. Moreover, they are a constant reminder both that translation is an inexact process and that the original texts are sometimes uncertain or obscure. Consequently they are preserved in The New Cam- bridge Paragraph Bible. Following Scrivener’s example, the additional notes that are found in the current text are also given, but in square brackets. Thus nothing is lost from the current text, but the reader can see at a glance what is the translators’ own work. The notes gave the original printer a great deal of trouble, especially with the locationof reference marks andthe use of italics, andThe NewCambridge Paragraph Bible follows the corrections made by later editors. The notes are a kind of scholarly apparatus. Here the italics have a genuine use, helping to bring out what is so often their point, the literal sense of the original, without being an impediment to reading. Outnumbering the notes are the cross-references. The first edition has 8,990 (6,588 in the OT, 885 in the Apocrypha and 1,517 in the NT), about a seventh of what is now found. 17 More than half the original references come from copies of the Vulgate, with consequences such as most of the references to the Psalms being to the wrong verses. The Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638 made most of the necessary corrections, and thereafter references accumulated like barnacles on an old hull, hard to remove and doing little for its seaworthiness. The indefatigable Scrivener worked over them all, producing a still more elaborate apparatus that, as with the rest of his work, has stayed outside the main tradition of the text. Given the unsatisfactory and largely secondhand state of the original and the somewhat more useful but indiscriminate state of the current cross- references (to say nothing of the lack of Scrivener’s knowledge and energy), 17 All information in this paragraph is from Scrivener, pp. 116–27. 164 A Textual History of the King James Bible nothing has been done to the cross-references in the work for The New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. 1611’s original headers and chapter summaries are rarely reproduced. Both have their interest for the places where they interpret the text, most notably the Song of Solomon, but belong more properly to the historic text than to a present-day edition. part 3 Appendices Appendix 1 Printer’s errors in the first edition This list includes only manifest errors that are, in all probability, attributable to the printer. Correct readings are giveninbrackets where necessary. Anasteriskpreceding the entry indicates an error that is repeated in the second edition (the ‘She’ Bible). m. following a reference indicates margin. ‘The Translators to the Reader’ Fol. A6 r : th [the] *Fol. A6 v : rekoning 1 Fol. B1 r : Taanslations *‘An Almanacke . . .’ Fol. D1 r : Adnent [Aduent] Genesis 9:26 m. displaced down one line 17 summary: Izsaac 17:4: [†] 17:4 m.: reference omitted 17:8 m.: soieurnings 21:32: Beeer-sheba 27:36: na-ned [na-med] 28 summary: Mahalal [Mahalath] 28:22: Aud 31:40: aud 32:15: ashes [asses] 33:2: chidren 45:3 m.: A&s. [Acts] 2 Exodus 3:2 m.: A&s. [Acts] 14:10: 3 lines repeated *16 header: Chap.xv.xvj. [Chap.xvj.] 3 25:20: to-toward 4 31:15 m.: holi-linesse 35:2 m.: he-linesse 40:10: Aud 40:22: Northwaed Leviticus 3:8: Aud 4:35: burnt [burne] 8:30: sunnes [sonnes] 11:34: drunkein [drunke in] 13:56: plaine [plague] 17:1: vnco [vnto] *20:27: wiz-zard 5 25:31: ee [be] 1 The other forty-five occurrences of ‘reckon . . .’ all have the c, making it probable that ‘rekoning’ is an error. But its reproduction in the second edition suggests that the printer of that edition found it possible enough as a spelling for it not to need altering. 2 Also found at Exod. 3:2 m., but (apparently) nowhere else inEnglish Bibles. The same ‘error’ twice ina short space suggests that ‘A&s.’ may be a peculiarity rather thananerror, a possible way of abbreviating ‘Acts’ that turned out to be pointless because it saved no space. 3 Normal practice when a chapter begins on a page is to put its number only in the header. The same deviation from normal is found at 1 Kgs 14, Job 35, Jer. 42, Ezek. 28, 38, Dan. 9, Judith 14, Eph. 6 and Hebr. 3. All but Hebr. 3 are identical in the second edition. 4 There are perhaps enough examples of such repetition over a line break for one to wonder whether it was an acceptable practice (other examples: Exod. 31:15 m.; Lev. 20:27; Deut. 15:5; 2 Chron. 23:17 m.; 2 Esdras 9:9; Wisdom 8:2; Acts 1:11; 8 summary). Against this possibility is repetition of a word across a line break (Jer. 15:5 m.; 15:10; Matt. 4:25; 16:25) or over a page break (Luke 15:2), and the omission of part of a hyphenated word (1 Chr. 11:1; Ezek. 20:37 m.; 1 Esdras 9:15; Rom. 1:16; 1 Cor. 7:40): none of these could be regarded as acceptable practice. Line breaks were particularly likely places for errors to occur. 5 Probably an error for ‘wy-zard’ or ‘wi-zard’; the former is the hyphenated form used else- where. 168 Appendix 1 Numbers 1:31: wece [were] 10:24: soune [sonne] 10:31: wilderuesse 14:18: chldren 19 summary: vncleaue 20:7: Lord [Lord] 29:1 m.: ‘i’ inverted in ‘Leuit.’ 31:50: golde chaines [golde, chaines (catchword is ‘golde,’)] 32 summary: Iorden [Iordan] Deuteronomy 4:34: stretehed [stretched] *11 header: Chap.viij. [Chap.xj.] 15:5: commande- dements 16:1: vuto [vnto] 25:17 m.: * [*] 27:1: people,, 31:29: commauded 33:21: himfelfe Joshua 5:13: dawen [drawen] 15 header: Iuadhs [Iudahs] 15:56: Ind [And] Judges 9:18: aud 9:19: aud 10:7: agaiust 14:14: aud Ruth 1:8: Aud 1 Samuel 7:6: aud 7:9: vnco [vnto] 8:22: vuto [vnto] 9:7 m.: Hebr [Hebr. or Heb.] 12:3 m.: at at 12:21 misnumbered 20 *17 header: Chap.xiiij. [Chap.xvij.] 2 Samuel 6 summary: Michol [Michal] 6 13:8 m.: Or, [Or,] 19:16: wass [was] 24 summary: staveth [stayeth] 24:25: Aud 1 Kings 1:5: horesemen 1:53: Solomou 2 header: Chap.vij. [Chap.ij] 2:44: moreuer 9:19: disired 15:29: house Iereboam [house of Iereboam] 20 summary: By rhe word 20:40: discided 2 Kings 4 header: Chap.xvj. [Chap.iiij.] 15:2: aud 17:14 m.: reference omitted 7 17:33 m.: Sophan. [Zephan.] 17:35: selnes 1 Chronicles 1:7 m: accor-ning 2 summary: another [Another] 2:3: Canaanites [Canaanitess] 6:76: subnrbs *7:14: concn-bine 10:11: ail [all] 11:1: vn- [vn-to] 11:10: strenthened 21:2: eueu [euen] 21:8: uow [now] 21:30: euquire 26:21: hiefe [chiefe] 2 Chronicles 3:4: atcording 4 summary: canstelsticks 7:22: aud 14:15: inabundance [in abundance] 18:11: sayiug 18:14: fobreare 23:17 m.: 13. 13. 9. [13. 9.] 28:15: aud 28:5: wich [with] 29 header: Chap.xxxix. [Chap.xxix.] *36 summary: raigning 36 summary: t1 [11] 6 Also found in the 1602 Bishops’ Bible. 7 Some copies of the second edition give ‘Deut. 31. 27.’, some follow the first edition (as do several other editions up to 1616). One 1612 octavo whose printer evidently noted the problem, omits the asterisk from the verse, eliminating the need for a reference. Printer’s errors in the first edition 169 Ezra 2:32: hun-dredand [hun-dred and] *6:9: appoyment [appointment] 8 6:15: honse 8:17: [†] 8:36: lieute-uants 10:3: lee [let)] Nehemiah 3:5: uext 4:14: to rest [to the rest] 4:23: uor [nor] 9 7:3: wateh [watch] 8:14: whith [which] 9:22: diddst Esther 2:12: Ahasnerus Job 4:8: wickednsse 14:2 m.: lob [Iob] 34:11 m: iere. 2. 32, 19 [iere. 32. 19] 38:6: Wherepuon 38:38: groweeh 39:5: looosed Psalms 2:6 m: [†] 2:12 m.: iete. [iere.] 13:4: enimie 18:48 m.: violenre 21:13: aud 23:1 m: Ezech. 34. [Ezech. 34. 23.] 25:18: aud 29 summary: Princcs 31:21 m.: fensed [fenced] 31:24: strenghten 32:5 m.: 95. [65.] 34:12 m.: Pet. [1 Pet.] 34:22: redeemech 35:27: no period at end of verse 10 36:2: flatterech 66:3 m.: yeild 73:11: kuow 74:7: Nawe [Name] 74:19: wicked forget [wicked: forget] 79:1: thine, inheritance [thine inheritance] 89:44 m.: brighnesse 90 summary: sencible 90:2: broughtforth 103:8 m.: nnm [num] *107 summary: Ouer [ouer] 137:4: LordS [Lords] 11 137:7: oi [of] Proverbs *14:12 m.: 23. [25.] 12 *20:16: suerty 23:32 m.: acockatrice 25:26: aud Ecclesiastes 5:20: much [ much] 7:25: aud 11:2: noc [not] 12:14: euer [euery] Song of Solomon 4:13: Spikenaed Isaiah 5:13: aud 5:23 m.: Pron. [Prou.] 7:3: marginal notes in wrong order *19 summary: folishnesse 29:3: Aud 29:11: vsion 37:30: felfe [selfe] 40:12: aud 44:5: LordS [Lords] *45:5: Lord [Lord] 13 49 summary: powerfulll 55:9: thouhts 60:9 m.: Gel. [Gal.] 65:11 m.: Mem [Meni] 66:3 m.: ame-moriall [a me-moriall] Jeremiah 2:30 m.: IsaI. [Isai.] 5:12 catchword: 12 For [12 They] 14 8 Some copies of the second edition agree with the first, some have ‘appointment’. 9 Some copies of the first edition have ‘uor’, some ‘nor’; the reading is not always clear. 10 This ‘error’ occurs when there is little or no space at the end of the verse, is sometimes reproduced in the second edition, and can be found elsewhere. Perhaps it is more laziness than error. It is found at Prov. 30:26; Micah 1:15; Ecclus. 7:32; 32:12; 1 Macc. 2: 59; 4:8; 8:15, 18; 2 Macc. 7:20; 8:15, 30; 9:22; 12:22; Rev. 8: 13. 11 Also at Isa. 44:5, Ezek. 8:16 and Joel 1:9. 12 This error (possibly not the printer’s) also occurs in all the 1612 editions and in the 1613, 1616 and 1617 folios. 13 The 1612 editions and the 1613 folio also have this error. 14 The second edition has a different, less interesting error, ‘12 Thy’. The first edition’s ‘incor- rect’ catchword raises the possibility that the translators intended the following verse to 170 Appendix 1 5:30 m.: asto-nishmen [asto-nishment] 15:5 m.: thy thy [thy] 15:10: that that [that] 24:1 m.: 24. [24. 12.] 15 25:12 m.: eszr [ezra] 28:11: Nebuchadnezzer 29:22: eurse 30:8: themselnes 30:13: bonnd [bound] 32:41: oner [ouer] 36 summary: ro [to] 36:20: bnt 39:1: Nebuchad rezzar [Nebuchad-rezzar] 16 39:11: coucerning 40:1: and note misplaced 17 48:40: Maob [Moab] *49:1: God [Gad] Ezekiel 3:3: vuto 8:16: LordS [Lords] 9:1: hauecharge [haue charge] 18:2 m.: Iee. [Ier.] 18 18:11: bnt 19:7: there [their] 20:37 m.: deli-ring [deli-uering] 23:23: the the [the] 23:43: iu [in] 34:18: fonle [foule] 36:2 m.: Chap. 62. [Chap. 6. 2.] 37:26: wich [with] 39 summary: iudement 40:6: † inverted 43:7: uor 43:15 m.: Marel [Harel] 44:5: ehe [the] Daniel 2:31: excelleut 3:1: Nebuchad nezzar [Nebuchad-nezzar] *12:5: † should be beside first instance of ‘banke’, not second 19 Hosea 1:8: couceiued Joel 1:9: LordS [Lords] 3:14 m. displaced down one verse in some copies Amos 4:1: yea [yee] 6:3 m.: Exek 7 summary: hy [by] Micah 2:7: dongs [doings] 4, 5 header: Ioel. [Micah.] 5:9: aud *7 summary: triumpheh 20 Nahum *3:8: scituate Habakkuk 3:3: on [one] Zephaniah 1:7 m.: san.ctified [sanctified] Haggai 2:1: twentith Zechariah 3 summary: 18 [8] 4:1: wakeued [wakened] Malachi 1:13 m: Or [Or] 1 Esdras 2:1 In the [In *the] 4 header: Anocrynha [Apocrypha] 4:51: yereely [yeerly] 5:52: And after, that [And after that] 21 5:53 m.: Grek. [Gr.] begin ‘For they’, or that they had inserted ‘For’ at the beginning of the verse and then deleted it, confusing the compositor as he set the catchword, but not when he came to set the verse. 15 The second edition and the 1613 and 1617 folios read incorrectly, ‘24. 1.’. 16 The lack of a hyphen here and at Dan. 3:1 is more likely to show a problem with the type than a failure to set the hyphen. 17 Noted by Smith, p. 7 n. Smith says some ‘She’ Bibles correct this, I presume by putting the mark against ‘chaines’ (later in the verse and over the page), and by putting the anno- tation over the page as in the 1613 and 1617 folios. 18 The second edition has both ‘Ier.’ and ‘Iere.’ 19 The 1612 editions also misplace the †. 20 1617 folio: ‘triumpeth’. 21 Some editions up to 1616 follow the first edition. Printer’s errors in the first edition 171 5:58: Le-nites [Le-uites] 22 6:4: misnumbered 7 9:15: capti u-tie [captiui-tie] 2 Esdras 1: CHAP. II. [CHAP. I.] 1 header: Chap.viij. [Chap.j.] 1:13 m.: Eod. [Exod.] 1:29: shoud *3:18: didest 4:9: uo 4 header: I. Esdras. [II. Esdras.] 4:40: wman *4:51 m.: shalbe manuscript? [shalbe? Manuscript] 23 5:6: enen [euen] 5:20: monrning 7:50: their [there] 7:66: that is [that he is] 8:15: touchiug 8:41: husbandmau *9:9: des-spitefully 12 header: Chap.vj. [Chap.xij.] *13:2 m.: Or missing *13:3 m.: Or missing Tobit 4:3: greiue 6:17: mercifnll Judith 6:12: vsed a sling from comming vp [used a sling kept them from coming up] *10:5 m.: Or missing 10:6: stan-diug Wisdom 2:19: torrture 24 3:14: in the Temple [ in the Temple]; m.: Gre. the chosen, or amongst the people [Gre. the chosen. Or amongst the people] 4:19: aud 5:16 m.: beta-ken [be taken] 25 8:2: de-desired 14:30: puuished Ecclesiasticus Prologue: botb 7:3: solde [folde] 11:30: aud 22:21: way [may] 26 summary: 20 [29] 43:20: Wheu 44:4: ‘by their knowledge of’ missing from some copies 47:20: dist [didst] 51:2: defeuder Baruch *6 header: Ecclesiasticus 26 *Prayer of Manasses: Lord, forgiue 1 Maccabees 1:6: kis [his] 1:55: aud 2:12: aud *2:52: intentation [in tentation] 4:29: with them [them with] *6:20: fiftith 7:12 m.: aythoritie 8:5 m.: Mace donians [Mace-donians] 9:9: onr *10:63: troble 11:22: can [came] 12:35: steong [strong] 2 Maccabees 6:9: hane [haue] 27 8:31: couenient 22 Wright notes (I, p. v) that some copies have ‘seters’ for ‘setters’ in this verse; I have not seen this. 23 Early editions follow the first edition; the error is corrected by 1629. 24 I note here a problem that should not, I think, be blamed on the printer. There are obvious interconnected errors in the margins to Wisdom 1:1 and 2; they are likely in the first place to come from cramped and unclear copy. There are some changes in the second edition, but a correct solution is not arrived at (either this is because the printer tried to make sense of the first edition’s muddle without recourse to the manuscript, or because the manuscript was too obscure). 25 Second edition: ‘heta-ken’; the spacing is ambiguous. 26 One of the 1612 octavos has the same error. 1616 also has it; this is the more striking because there it is the final page of the book, so the header should be ‘The Song of’. 27 Wright (I, p. v) notes that some copies have ‘tyranuus’ for ‘tyrannus’ at 4:40 m.; I have not seen this. 172 Appendix 1 *10:12: chosing 10:16: wich [with] 11:21: Dioscorinthius [ Dioscorinthius] 12:30 catchword: 13 [31] 15:6: moument [monument] Matthew 4:25: great great [great] 10:7 m: 6. 7. [6. 6.] 11:6: whoseouer [whosoeuer] 12 summary: brothe [brother] 16:25: his his [his] 26:34: might [night] 27:37: writtten Mark 6:56: whithersouer 7:4 m.: notes are in the wrong order 9 summary: r1 [11] 9:17: broughe [brought] 11:19: Euen [euen] 14:65: stricke [strike] 14:67: war-ning [war-ming] Luke 10:36: himt hat [him that] 15:2: murmured, murmured, saying 28 21:28: redemptiou 22:31: fift [sift] John 8:33: Abraham seed [Abrahams seed] 12:35: dark-desse 15:4: and in you [and I in you] 19:12: thencefore [thenceforth] Acts 1 summary: inthe 1:11: Gali-lilee 3:7: aud 4:6: Caiphas 7:14: fifteeene 8 summary: mira-racles 9:14: authoritic [authoritie] 11:7: Petec [Peter] 13:18 m.: ‡ [†] 14:22: aud 15:33: breehren 20:26: co [to] 23:5: Prist [Priest] Romans 1:16: Go-pel [Go-spel] 2:16 ac cording [ac-cording] 7:2: husbaud 15:28: hane 16:25: the the [the] 1 Corinthians 7:40: so -bide [so a-bide] 12:12: membrs 15:6: misnumbered 5 15:11: aud 2 Corinthians 1:7: consolatiou Galatians 1:13: couuersation 2:14: th e maner 3:8 m.: Cen. [Gen.] Ephesians 1:9: himselse 4:30: sririt 5:16: Redeming 1 Thessalonians 2:9: labourng 1 Timothy 6:20: fasly [falsly] 2 Timothy 3:16: instruti-on Philemon 20: bowles [bowels] Hebrews 6:20: entrrd 10:36: that shall after [that after] James 1:27: Facher [Father] 2:23: fullfiled 1 Peter 4:1: ceassed Jude 15: heard [hard] Revelation 5:5: m. ref. one line high 6:13: m.: Or. [Or,] 19:21: aud 28 ‘Murmured’ is incorrectly repeated at the top of a page; the catchword at the bottom of the previous page is, correctly, ‘saying’. Appendix 2 First and second edition variations This is aselectivelist; it includes all thevariations that might beof textual significance, together with some that are typographical errors in the second edition. Further variations are to be found in appendix 1. All the variations given in the two main published lists, Scrivener’s and Wright’s, together with some variations they do not list, are included in these appendices. Boldtype indicates a second edition reading that is to be found in the Cambridge Concord and, for the Apocrypha, Pitt Brevier editions, taken as the modern stan- dard; the marginal variants in the Apocrypha have been compared with Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible. * indicates readings found in some but not all copies. m. after reference: margin. s. after reference: chapter summary. 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition Genesis 8:10 other ouer 10:16 Emorite Amorite 16:6 But Abram And Abram 19:13 is waxen in waxen 26:20 heardmen heardman 26:34 Bashemath Bashemah 27:39 the fatnesse thy fatnesse 28:12 vp on vpon 28:13 aboue about 29:3 his place this place 29:8 till tell 29:24 Zilpah Zilpha 31:30 longedst longest 33:2 their chidren the children 35:27 which is which the 35:28 hundred hundreth 36:10 Bashemath Bashamath 36:29 These Shese* 42:28 an other another 46:17 Isui Ishui 46:34 an abomination abomination 47:27 possessions possession* Exodus 9:13 me thee 11:8 all these also these 14:2 Pi-hahiroth Pi-hahiroh 19:4 Eagles wings Eagle wings 21:26 let him go* let them go 21:27 let him go let them go 22:6 hee that kindled he that kindleth 36:29 m. twinned twined 38:11 hoopes hookes 39:7 on one Leviticus 1:6 flay slay 1:16 m. thereof there 5:13 atonement attonement 17:14 Ye shall not eat Ye shall eat 18:3 after the doings of land of Canaan after the doings of the land of Canaan 18:30 shal ye ye shal 23:36 vnto the Lord vnto Lord 25:28 vntil the yeere vnto the yeere 174 Appendix 2 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition Numbers 1:47 tribe tribes 3:19 Vzziel Azziel 10:2 shalt thou thou shalt 10:14 m. 2nd ref. placed at v. 21 14:15 then when 16:34 said say 21:9 m. ioh. iosh. 21:18 direction directions* 26:21 Hesronites Hezronites* 27:13 m. 24 14 33:7 pitched piched 34 ch. num. XXXIII 34:2 this is the land that is the land 34:11 goe downe come down Deuteronomy 1:18 all the things all things 8:7 valleys the valleyes 9:10 spake with you spake vnto you 11:6 m. 106 108 12:26 thy holy things the holy things 14:29 widowe widowes 16:14 thy maid seruant the maid seruant 16:14 Leuite Liuite 16:15 solemne selemne 16:17 according atcording 16:20 m. iusticd, iustice iustice, iustice 17:4 it be true it is true 17:8 being deing 17:16 he she 23:14 away way 32:6 bought thee brought thee 32:15 Thou art waxen Thou art waxed 32:34 laide vp laid vpe 33:29 the Lord thy Lord 34:1 plaines plaine Joshua 2:4 woman women 4:3 stood stoost 5:8 they abode all abode 8:8 ye shall set it shall set 8:32 the stones the stone 15:50 Ashtemoh Ashtemoth* 16:6 Taanath Taanah* 18:22 Betharabah Bethabarah 19:5 Hazar- Hasar 19:16 these cities their cities Judges 6:26 Altar Alar 6:40 there their 8:10 Zebah Zeba 8:27 in his on his 20:7 Israel Asrael 20:7 giue here giue her Ruth 2:11 knewest knowest* 3:8 m. tooke holde on tooke holde on him* 3:15 he went she went 1 Samuel 4:22 for fo 7:1 Kiriath- Kiriah-* 20:13 The Lord Then Lord* 26:25 his way this way* 2 Samuel 4:5 bed bead* 6:9 Arke of the Lord Arke of God* 6:16 citie of Dauid house of Dauid* 6:20 one of on of* 17:25 Abigail Abigal 18:31 all them that rose all that rose 20:22 woman women* 20:25 Priests Peists* 23:20 a valiant man, of Kabzeel a valiant man of Kabzeel 1 Kings 3:20 arose rose* 4:23 fallow follow 9:22 bondmen bondman* 11:1 Sidonians Sydonians* 15:4 vp vs 15:29 the house Jereboam the house of Jereboam 20:3 the goodliest thy goodliest 21:2 my house mine house First and second edition variations 175 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition 2 Kings 5:12 turned returned* 10:3 your masters yours masters* 12:13 were was 13:17 arrowe of the arrowe the 17:6 Halah Halath 17:34 Commaundement Commaundements* 18:1 m. 1. 9. 1. 6. 19:15 before the Lord vnto the Lord* 24:2 Chaldees Caldees 1 Chronicles 1:5 Meshech Mesech 1:40 m. Aluan Alnan* 1:47, 48 Samlah Shamlah* 2:13 m. 16. 6. 16. 9. 2:49 Sheua Shua* 2:55 m. ‘Ier. 35. 2.’ placed at 3:1 3:18 Hoshama Hosanna* 3:23 m. Hiskijah Hiskiah* 4:30 and at Hormah and Hormah* 4:36 Jesohaiah Jehohaiah* 6:74 Mashal Machal* 7:13 Jezer Gezer* 7:36 Suah Shuah* 7:38 Pispa Pispah 9:12 Passhur Pashur 21 s. Gibeon Gideon 25:5 And Add* 26:5 Issachar Isachar 26:25 Jeshaiah Jeshiaiah* 27:28 cellars sellars* 27:33 Hushai Hushi 28:11 gaue gane* 29:27 reigned regned* 2 Chronicles 1:15 as the as thy* 6:5 my people Israel my people of Israel 9:15 gold went golden went* 16:1 fin. Judah Juda* 21:9 rose aose 21:15 disease of thy bowels diseases of thy bowels* 25:27 m. Heb. Her.* 29:34 flay slay 30:6 his Princes the Princes 32:20 Amoz Amos 34:21 for them that are left of them that are left 35:10 Priests Prests 35:15 m. 9. 2. 35:15 m. 26. 46. 36:11 m. 37. 47. Ezra 2:28 two hundred, twentie two hundred and twenty 2:33 Hadid Haddid 3:5 that willingly offred, offred a freewill offering that willingly offered a free will offering 9:2 hath bin chiefe haue bin chief 9:3 pluckt off pluckt of Nehemiah 6:10 Mehetabel Mehetable* 8:10 vnto our Lord vnto the Lord 9:14 thy holy Sabbath the holy Sabbath* 9:38 Priestes Priest 10:1 those that sealed these that sealed 10:16 Biguai Bigui* 11:11 Hilkiah Helkiah* 13:18 wrath wroth* Esther 1:13 Kings maner King maner* 9:6, 11 Shushan Sushan Job 9:9 m. Cesil Cecil* 11:16 thy misery the misery* 13:28 consumeth, as consumeth as 19:15 maides maidens 30:7 brayed prayed 35–6 header causes cause 37:6 m. 147. 148. 176 Appendix 2 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition Psalms 19 s. glory gory* 24:8 Who is this king Who is the king* 27:14 m. hab. heb. 29:8 shaketh the wildernes shadeth the wildernes* 33:7 gathereth gathered* 35:27 yea yet* 44:23 O Lord O Lord 56:6 gather gathered* 74:19 doue done* 74:23 rise vp arise vp 80:9 preparedst preparest 83:2 they that they they* 84:11 Lord God Lord, God* 87:4 man was man was 88:3 graue gaue* 88:9 of affliction o affliction 104:4 his Angels the Angels* 106:1 m. 107. 117. 119:7 †thy thy* 125:3 m. wickednesse wickenesse* 126:6 reioycing: bringing reioycing †bringing 143:2 m. 16. 19.* 143:10 land hand* Proverbs 3:9 m. luke 14. 13. omitted 3:14 m. vers. 11. vers. 12.* 6:2 mouth month* 8:27 m. a circle circle 11:20 to the Lord vnto the Lord* 16:5 unpunished punished 18:24 must but* 23:31 vpon the wine among the wine 24:5 m. strengtheneth strentheneth Ecclesiastes 1:17 spirit the spirit 7:20 m. ioh. 1. 8. ioh. 8. 1.* 12:1 thy Creatour the Creatour* Song of Solomon 2:7 till she please* till he please 6:11 whether whither Isaiah 1:9 Gomorrah Gomorah 2:4 their speares there speares* 7:3 m. †That ||That* 9:18 smoke the smoke 10 s. promise ptomise* 10:15 as if it were as it were 10:19 †few, that a child may write few, that a child may †write 10:29 Gebeah Gibeah 13:1 Amoz Amos 14:12 m. O a* 19:5 the riuer the riuers* 21 s. scorning the Prophet scorning the Prophets 23:12 haue no rest take no rest* 23:13 founded found* 28:1 head hed 30:15 strength strenght* 34:3 shalbe melted shall melted 34 header sure pure 41:29 works words* 42:1 m. 3. 17. 3. 1. 44:13 maketh marketh 45:23 m. phil. psal.* 49:1 from farre from afarre 49:20 straight straite 57:10 wearied wearie* 58:8 light life* 58:11 m. droughts droughes* 59:8 know knew 59:14 a farre off farre off* 59:21 the seed thy seed 60:4 from farre from afarre* 61:10 and as a bride as a bride 65:2 my hands mine hands Jeremiah 2:13 m. 36 35* 5:15 vpon you vpon thee 5:24 later latter 6 header Chap.vj. Chap.xx.* 8:14 waters of gall water of gall* 12:7 hand hands 12:9 m. tallented tallonfed* First and second edition variations 177 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition 22:3 spoiler spoiled 25:15 my hand mine hand 26:20 Kiriath- Kiriah- 30:4 the words they words* 31:30 that eateth ehat tateth* 35:11 Ierusalem. Ierusalem,* 40:12 out of all places out of the places 48:23 Beth-meon Beth-mehon* 48:34 Elealeh Elealeth 50:29 done vnto her done, do vnto her 52:4 m. 39. 36.* Lamentations 2:5 was as an was an* 2:7 m. shut shnt* 4:6 hands hand* 4:13 m. 31. 32.* 5:7 m. 18. 2. 18. 1. Ezekiel 1:2 Jehoiakins Jehoiakims* 1:12 whither whether* 3:15 Tel-abib Til-abib* 5:5 This is Jerusalem Thus is Jerusalem 6:14 my hand mine hand 8 s. for Tammuz from Tammuz* 14:18 sonnes nor daughter sons nor daughters 16:16 And of thy garments And thy garments 16:19 flowre floore 16:59 hast despised hath despised 20:5 m. Exod Ezod.* 20:13 m. 14. 29. 14. 26.* 21:10 m. it despiseth is despiseth 24 s. Ezekiel Ezekel 24:4 pieces pices 24:4 piece peace 25:2 m. 49. 46. 27:10 thy men of war the men of war 29:18 Nebuchad- rezzar Nebuchad nezzar 29:19 Nebuchad- rezzar Nebuchad- nezzar 30:13 1 there their 31:4 the field the fields 31:13 branches, branches. 31:18 by the sword with the sword 32:4 whol wole 35:10 mine thine 36:10 the wastes the wast 37:4 vpon vnto 38:2 m. chiefe chie. 39:9 m. of them for them 42:12 directly directed 43:20 and on the and one the 44:29 the trespasse offring their trespasse offring 45:12 twentie shekels twentie shekes 46:4 Sabbath Sabboth 48:1 Hathlon Hethlon Daniel 2:34 to pieces in pieces 3:19 furnace surnace 10:11 am I am A 11:6 she shall be giuen vp hee shall be giuen vp 11:10 sonnes sonne Hosea 6:5 shewed hewed 14:3 Asshur Ashur Joel 2:11 m. am. and Amos 6:7 that goe captiue that goeth captiue 9:12 m. whom whow Obadiah 7 thy confederacie the confederacie Micah 1:5 for the sinnes the sinnes 7:7 vnto you the Lord vnto the Lord Nahum 1:10 while they are drunken while they be drunken 1 Not to be confused with ‘their’ earlier in the verse. 178 Appendix 2 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition Habakkuk 2:15 that puttest thou puttest 3:13 head heate Zephaniah 1:7 hath bid had bid 3:14 m. 54. 1. 45. 1. Zechariah 3:7 m. walks walke 6:7 walked to and fro walked to and for 9:17 m. speake spake 2 10:3 his goodly the goodly Malachi 1:8 And if hee offer And if ye offer 1 Esdras 1:23 his Lord the Lord 1:29 king Josias Josias 2:16 m. Shimshai Simshai 4:47 Darius Darus 5:5 m. Juda Judah 5:9 m. particulars particulers 5:16 m. Besai Bezai 5:26 Banuas Bannas 6:23 Ecbatana Ecbatane 8:54 m. Serenias Serebias 8:69 to wit to wit 9:33 m. Mattithiah Matithiah 2 Esdras 2:33 at nought at naught 4:3 Lord: and Lord. Then 7:40 Sennacherib Sannacherib 14:12 the tenth a tenth 16:67 iniquities inquities Tobit 5:18 m. Let not Let no 11:14 thine holy thy holy Judith 3:5–7:16 Holofernes Olofernes 8:16 m. ingage image 16:4 stopped stoppeth Wisdom 2:17 m. 27. 37. 10:14 gaue them perpetuall gaue him perpetuall 13:12 after spending after, spending 18:11 m. 12:29 12:28 Ecclesiasticus 21:24 with the disgrace with disgrace 22:2 dunghill dungill 23:4 m. || Or, a giant like || Or, giant like 23:19 eies of men eies of man 31:20 paine plaine 44:5 reiected recited Baruch 6:40 Chaldeans Caldeans Song of Three 4 (3) trueth are truth Prayer of Manasses l:2 their righteous the righteous 1 Maccabees 4:48 hallowed hollowed 5:44 Carnaim Cranaim 7:1 m. lib. 10, 12 lib. 12 7:16 of them of h em 10:47 || peace true peace 10:47 m. || True 11 s. 48 4 12:21 stocke flocke 12:47 m. left let 13 s. 46* 3 40 13:3 gaue giue 2 Maccabees 4:13 no high priest not high priest 4:34 othes others 2 In both editions the text is, incorrectly, in roman type. 3 Some copies read ‘40’. First and second edition variations 179 1st edition 2nd edition 1st edition 2nd edition 6:25 mine minde 13:16 campe came Matthew 8:25 and awoke, saying and awoke him, saying 10:38 m. 24. 26. 11:7 ye he 12:40 m. 17. 87. 13:4 wayes side way side 13:31 like to a graine like vnto a graine 13:45 goodly pearls good pearls 14:19 verse number 19 16 18:30 went went out 22:24 a man any man 24 s. calamities clamities 26 s. 1 Omission 26:36 Jesus Judas Mark 2:10 verse number 10 19 15:46 vnto the doore vpon the doore Luke 1:77 sinnes, sinnes. 2:24 offer a sacrifice offer sacrifice 10:23 m. Mat. Mar. 10:36 among the theeues among theeues 17:33 m. Mat. 16. Matth. 15. 22 header Chap. xij. John 5:29 m. 25. 46. 25. 16. 14:23 a man any man Acts 4:6 Caiphas Caiaphas 4:12 we must must 4:27 thy holy the holy 6:12 came vpon came vnto 15:11 the Lord our Lord 16:7 suffered them suffered him 16:19 drew them into drew them vnto 21:2 Phenicea Phenicia 25:1 Hierusalem Jerusalem Romans 6:21 had yee had you 10:21 I haue stretched haue I stretched 11:22 towards toward 16 subscription of the Church to the Church 1 Corinthians 4 s. ought to to ought 2 Corinthians 7:14 spake speake Ephesians 6:21 yee also may yee may also Philippians 1:4 ioy ioy, 1 Thessalonians title Paul the Apostle the Apostle Paul 1:9 turned returned 2 Timothy 1:9 which wich* James 5:4 Sabaoth Sabbaoth 1 Peter 1:22 souls selues 2:7 hee is ||precious ||he is precious 2 Peter 2:6 Gomorrha Gomorrah Appendix 3 The King’s Printer’s list? If the King’s Printer hadalist of changes tobe made tothe text of thefirst editionwhen using that edition as the copy text for a later setting, it would have contained some or all of the entries given below. The list given here derives from variant readings in the second edition that are also found in other early settings; a tick indicates that the edition has the change. Pairs of editions in the three smaller formats are given, one of which has ‘he went’, the other ‘she went’ at Ruth 3:15. The 1613 and 1616 folios, as independent settings, are also given. Finally, though it used the second edition as copy text, the 1617 folio, the third edition in the large Black Letter series, is included. The 1612 octavos (H315 and H316, as represented on microfilm) are mixed, and so are sometimes identical. Readings that are found in some copies of the first edition are not included (Exod. 21:26–7, ‘let them go’ followed by ‘let him go’; 2 Sam. 17:25, ‘Abigal’; Song 2:7, ‘till he please’; and 1 Macc. 13 summary, ‘40’); all except the last are found in all the editions listed below. An asterisk indicates a reading found in the Cambridge Concord and, for the Apocrypha, Pitt Brevier editions, taken as the modern standard; the marginal vari- ants in the Apocrypha have been compared with Scrivener’s Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Ref. 1st edition Change 1612 Roman 4 ◦ H313 1612 Roman 4 ◦ H314 1613 Black Letter 4 ◦ H323 1613 Black Letter 4 ◦ H324 1612 8 ◦ H315 1612 8 ◦ H316 1613 F ◦ H322 1616 F ◦ H349 1617 F ◦ H353 *Gen. 42:28 an other another ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Exod. 38:11 hoopes hookes ✓ ✓ ✓ *Lev. 17:14 Ye shall not eat Ye shall eat ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Lev. 18:3 of land of of the land of ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Ruth 3:15 he went she went ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *1 Kgs 15:29 house Iereboam house of Iereboam ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Kgs 24:2 Chaldees Caldees ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *1 Chr. 9:12 Passhur Pashur ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Ezra 3:5 that willingly offred, offered a free will offering that willingly offered a free will offering ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Isa. 10:19 †few, that a child may write few, that a child may †write ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Isa. 10:29 Gebeah Gibeah ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Isa. 44:13 maketh marketh ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Isa. 59:21 the seede thy seede ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Jer. 5:24 later latter ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Jer. 22:3 spoiler spoiled ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Jer. 50:29 done vnto her done, do vnto her ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Ezek. 14:18 sons nor daughter sons nor daughters ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Ezek. 48:1 Hathlon Hethlon ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Hos. 6:5 shewed hewed ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ref. 1st edition Change 1612 Roman 4 ◦ H313 1612 Roman 4 ◦ H314 1613 Black Letter 4 ◦ H323 1613 Black Letter 4 ◦ H324 1612 8 ◦ H315 1612 8 ◦ H316 1613 F ◦ H322 1616 F ◦ H349 1617 F ◦ H353 *Micah 7:7 vnto you the Lord vnto the Lord ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Mal. 1:8 And if hee offer And if yee offer ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *1 Esdras 5:5 m. Iuda Iudah ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 1 Esdras 8:54 m. Serenias Serebias ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Judith passim Holofernes Olofernes ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Wisdom 10:14 gaue them gaue him ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Ecclus. 44:5 reiected recited ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *1 Macc. 7:1 m. lib. 10, 12 lib. 12 ✓ ✓ ✓ *1 Macc. 10:47 peace’, m.: True true peace ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Macc. 4:13 no high priest not high priest ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Matt. 8:25 and awoke, saying and awoke him, saying ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Luke 1:77 sinnes, sinnes. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ *Acts 4:6 Caiphas Caiaphas ✓ ✓ *Acts 25:1 Hierusalem Ierusalem ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Phil. 1:4 ioy ioy. ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ The following readings are listed separately because they represent variations of spelling or mechanical reproduction of errors, or because they are found in only one or two editions. None of them is likely to come from a list. Ref. 1st edition Change 1612 Roman 4 ◦ H313 1612 Roman 4 ◦ H314 1613 Black Letter 4 ◦ H323 1613 Black Letter 4 ◦ H324 1612 8 ◦ H315 1612 8 ◦ H316 1613 F ◦ H322 1616 F ◦ H349 1617 F ◦ H353 Exod. 36:29 m. twinned twined ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Deut. 32:15 thou art waxen thou art waxed ✓ ✓ 2 Sam. 23:20 man, of Kabzeel man of Kabzeel ✓ ✓ 1 Chr. 7:36 Suah Shuah ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Chr. 29:34 flay slay ✓ ✓ Song 6:11 whether whither ✓ ✓ Isa. 1:9 Gomorrah Gomorah ✓ ✓ Isa. 13:1 Amoz Amos ✓ ✓ ✓ *Isa. 49:20 straight strait ✓ ✓ Isa. 60:4 from farre from afarre ✓ ✓ Lam. 2:5 was as an was an ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Ezek. 8s for Tammuz of Tammuz ✓ ✓ Hos. 14:3 Asshur Ashur ✓ ✓ Joel 2:11 m. am. iam., or iames ✓ ✓ ✓ 2 Esdras 14:12 the tenth a tenth ✓ ✓ Ecclus. 23:4 m. Or, a giant like Or, giant like ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Luke 10:23 m. Mat. Mar. ✓ ✓ ✓ John 5:29 m. 25. 46. 25:16. ✓ ✓ Gen. 28:12: vpon, H316 Deut. 32:6: brought thee, H324 Josh. 16:6: Taanah, H316. Judg. 8:10: Zeba, H323. Ruth 3:8 m.: tooke holde on him, H322. 1 Chr. 1:47, 48: Shamlah, H323. 1 Chr. 2:13 m.: 16. 9., H313. 1 Chr. 3:23 m.: Hiskiah, H324. Ps. 24:8: Who is the king, H314. Ps. 74:19: done, H316. Prov. 6:2, ‘mouth’, first occurrence, is ‘month’ in H315. Prov. 24:5 m.: strentheneth, H324. Luke 10:36: among theeues, H313. (John 5:29 m.: 25. 26., H353, is a new error.) Appendix 4 Selective collation of the 1613 folio (H322) with the first and second editions The purpose of this collation is to show where the 1613 folio appears to use the first and where the second edition as copy text. Readings from the first edition are aligned left, those from the second edition aligned right. The following four groups of readings have been omitted because they probably do not give a clear indication as to which edition is being used as copy text: 1. errors one would expect a compositor to correct; 2. readings found in some copies of the first edition and in the second edition, except for Exod. 21:26, which, in combination with v. 27, constitutes a distinctive first-edition reading; 3. readings that are found in the first edition and some but not all copies of the second edition; 4. readings from my hypothetical King’s Printer’s list, since these may be deliberate changes to the copy text. Genesis 10:16 Emorite 16:6 But Abram 26:20 heardmen 26:34 Bashemath 27:39 the fatnesse 28:12 vp on 28:13 aboue 29:3 his place 31:30 longedst 33:2 their children 35:28 hundred 36:10 Bashemath 46:17 Isui 46:34 an abomination 47:27 possessions Exodus 9:13 me 11:8 all these 14:2 Pi-hahiroth 19:4 Eagles wings 21:26 let them go 21:27 let him go 22:6 hee that kindled 36:29 m. twined Leviticus 1:6 flay 1:16 m. thereof 5:13 atonement 18:30 shal ye 25:28 vntil the yeere Numbers 1:47 tribe 10:2 shalt thou 10:14 m. Correctly placed 16:34 said 21:9 m. ioh. 27:13 m. 24 34:2 this is the land 34:11 goe downe Deuteronomy 1:18 all the things 8:7 valleys 9:10 spake with you Collation of 1613 folio with first and second editions 185 11:6 m. 106 12:26 thy holy things 14:29 widowe 16:14 thy maid seruant 17:4 it be true 32:6 bought thee 32:15 Thou art waxen 33:29 the Lord 34:1 plaines Joshua 2:4 woman 5:8 they abode 8:32 the stones 18:22 Betharabah 19:5 Hazar- 19:16 these cities Judges 8:10 Zebah 20:7 giue here Ruth 3:8 m. tooke holde on him 1 Samuel 20:13 The Lord 2 Samuel 18:31 all them that rose 23:20 a valiant man of Kabzeel 1 Kings 3:20 rose 9:22 bondman 11:1 Sydonians 20:3 thy goodliest 21:2 my house 2 Kings 5:12 returned 12:13 were 17:6 Halah 18:1 m. 1. 9. 1 Chronicles 1:5 Meshech 1:47, 48 Shamlah 2:13 m. 16. 6. 2:55 m. Correctly placed 4:30 and Hormah 7:13 Gezer 7:36 Shuah 7:38 Pispa 21 s. Gibeon 26:5 Isachar 27:33 Hushi 2 Chronicles 6:5 my people of Israel 16:1 fin. Iuda 29:34 flay 30:6 the Princes 32:20 Amos 34:21 for them that are left 35:15 m. 9. 35:15 m. 26. 36:11 m. 37. Ezra 2:28 two hundred, twentie 2:33 Hadid 9:2 haue bin chief Nehemiah 8:10 vnto the Lord 9:38 Priestes 10:1 those that sealed Esther 9:6, 11 Shushan Job 9:9 m. Cecil 11:16 the misery 13:28 consumeth as 19:15 maidens 30:7 brayed 37:6 m. 1 Psalms 27:14 m. hab. 44:23 O Lord 74:23 arise vp 80:9 preparedst 87:4 man was 106:1 m. 107. Proverbs 3:9 m. luke 14. 13. 1 ‘114’; first edition, ‘147’; second, ‘148’. 186 Appendix 4 8:27 m. circle 11:20 vnto the Lord 16:5 unpunished 23:31 vpon the wine Ecclesiastes 1:17 spirit Song of Songs 6:11 whither Isaiah 1:9 Gomorrah 9:18 the smoke 10:15 as if it were 13:1 Amos 19:5 the riuers 21s. scorning the Prophet 42:1 m. 3. 17. 49:1 from afarre 49:20 straite 57:10 wearie 60:4 from afarre 61:10 as a bride 65:2 my hands Jeremiah 5:15 vpon you 12:7 hand 25:15 mine hand 26:20 Kiriath- 40:12 out of all places 48:34 Elealeh Lamentations 5:7 m. 18. 2. Ezekiel 5:5 Thus is Ierusalem 6:14 mine hand 16:16 2 16:59 hast despised 25:2 m. 49. 27:10 thy men of war 29:18, 19 Nebuchad-rezzar 31:4 the field 31:13 branches, 31:18 by the sword 35:10 mine 36:10 the wastes 37:4 vpon 39:9 m. of them 42:12 directly 44:29 the trespasse offring 46:4 Sabbath Daniel 2:34 to pieces 11:6 she shall be giuen vp 11:10 sonnes Hosea 14:3 Asshur Amos 6:7 that goe captiue Obadiah 7 thy confederacie Micah 1:5 for the sinnes Nahum 1:10 while they are drunken Habakkuk 2:15 that puttest Zephaniah 3:14 m. 54. 1. Zechariah 3:7 m. walks 10:3 his goodly 1 Esdras 1:23 his Lord 1:29 king Iosias 2:16 m. Shimshai 5:5 m. Iuda 5:16 m. Besai 5:26 Banuas 6:23 Ecbatana 8:69 to wit 9:33 m. Mattithiah 2 Esdras 2:33 at naught 4:3 Lord: and 2 ‘Of thy garments’; first edition, ‘and of thy garments’; second, ‘and thy garments’. Collation of 1613 folio with first and second editions 187 7:40 Sennacherib 14:12 the tenth Tobit 5:18 m. Let not 11:14 thine holy Judith 16:4 stopped Wisdom 2:17 m. 37. 13:12 after, spending 18:11 m. 12:29 Ecclesiasticus 21:24 with the disgrace 23:4 m. Or, a giant like 23:19 eies of men Baruch 6:40 Caldeans Song of Three 4 (3) trueth Prayer of Manasses l. 2 their righteous 1 Maccabees 7:1 m. lib. 10, 12 12:21 stocke 2 Maccabees 4:13 no high priest 4:34 othes Matthew 10:38 m. 26. 11:7 he 13:4 way side 13:31 like vnto a graine 13:45 goodly pearls 18:30 went out 22:24 any man Mark 15:46 vnto the doore Luke 1:77 sinnes, 2:24 offer a sacrifice 10:23 m. Mat. 10:36 among the theeues 17:33 m. Mat. 16. John 5:29 m. 3 14:23 any man Acts 4:6 Caiphas 4:27 thy holy 6:12 came vnto 15:11 our Lord 16:7 suffered them 16:19 drew them into 21:2 Phenicea Romans 6:21 had yee 10:21 haue I stretched 11:22 toward 16 subscription to the Church 2 Corinthians 7:14 speake Ephesians 6:21 yee also may Philippians 1:4 4 1 Thessalonians title Paul the Apostle 1:9 turned James 5:4 Sabbaoth 1 Peter 1:22 selues 2:7 hee is precious 2 Peter 2:6 Gomorrah 3 ‘15. 16’; first edition, correctly, ‘25. 46’; second, ‘25. 16’ (1617 has another variation, ‘25. 26’). 4 ‘ioy.’; first edition, ‘ioy’; second edition, ‘ioy,’. Appendix 5 Selective collation of the 1617 folio (H353) with the first and second editions Genesis 10:16 Amorite 16:6 And Abram 26:20 heardman 26:34 Bashemath 27:39 the fatnesse 28:12 vp on 28:13 aboue 29:3 his place 31:30 longest 33:2 their children 35:28 hundreth 36:10 Bashemath 46:17 Ishui 46:34 an abomination 47:27 possessions Exodus 9:13 me 11:8 all these 14:2 Pi-hahiroh 19:4 Eagles wings 21:26 let them go 21:27 let them go 22:6 he that kindleth 36:29 m. twined Leviticus 1:6 slay 1:16 m. thereof 5:13 attonement 18:30 shal ye 25:28 vntill the yeere Numbers 1:47 tribes 10:2 thou shalt 10:14 m. 2nd ref. placed at v. 21 16:34 sayd 21:9 m. ioh. 27:13 m. 14 34:2 this is the land 34:11 goe downe Deuteronomy 1:18 all things 8:7 valleys 9:10 spake vnto you 11:6 m. 106 12:26 thy holy things 14:29 widowe 16:14 thy maid seruant 17:4 it is true 32:6 bought thee 32:15 Thou art waxed 33:29 the Lord 34:1 plaines Joshua 2:4 woman 5:8 they abode 8:32 the stones 18:22 Betharabah 19:5 Hasar 19:16 their cities Judges 8:10 Zebah 20:7 giue here Ruth 3:8 m. tooke holde on 1 Samuel 20:13 Then Lord 2 Samuel 18:31 all them that rose 23:20 a valiant man of Kabzeel Collation of 1617 folio with first and second editions 189 1 Kings 3:20 arose 4:23 follow 9:22 bondmen 11:1 Sidonians 20:3 thy goodliest 21:2 mine house 2 Kings 5:12 turned 12:13 were 17:6 Halath 17:34 Commaundements 18:1 m. 1. 9. 1 Chronicles 1:5 Mesech 1:47, 48 Shamlah 2:13 m. 16. 6. 2:55 m. Correctly placed 4:30 and at Hormah 7:13 Gezer 7:36 Shuah 7:38 Pispah 9:12 Pashur 21 s. Gibeon 26:5 Isachar 27:33 Hushi 2 Chronicles 6:5 my people Israel 9:15 golden went 16:1 fin. Iudah 29:34 slay 30:6 the Princes 32:20 Amos 34:21 for them that are left 35:15 m. 9. 35:15 m. 26. 36:11 m. 37. Ezra 2:28 two hundred and twenty 2:33 Hadid 9:2 hath been chiefe 9:3 pluckt off Nehemiah 8:10 vnto the Lord 9:38 Priestes 10:1 these that sealed Esther 1:13 King maner 9:6, 11 Shushan Job 9:9 m. Cesil 11:16 thy misery 13:28 consumeth as 19:15 maidens 30:7 prayed 35–6 header cause 37:6 m. 147. Psalms 27:14 m. heb. 44:23 O Lord 74:23 arise vp 80:9 preparedst 84:11 Lord, God 87:4 man was 106:1 m. 107. Proverbs 3:9 m. luke 14. 13. 8:27 m. a circle 11:20 to the Lord 16:5 unpunished 18:24 1 23:31 vpon the wine Ecclesiastes 1:17 the spirit Song of Solomon 6:11 whether Isaiah 1:9 Gomorrah 2:4 there speares 9:18 smoke 1 1st edn: ‘must’; 2nd edn, some copies: ‘but’; 1617: ‘will’. 190 Appendix 5 10:15 as if it were 10:19 †few, that a child may write 13:1 Amos 14:12 m. a 19:5 the riuers 21 s. scorning the Prophet 34 header pure 42:1 m. 3. 17. 49:1 from afarre 49:20 strait 57:10 wearied 59:8 know 60:4 from farre 61:10 and as a bride 65:2 mine hands Jeremiah 5:15 vpon you 8:14 water of gall 12:7 hands 25:15 my hand 26:20 Kiriah- 35:11 Ierusalem, 40:12 out of all places 48:34 Elealeh Lamentations 4:6 hand 5:7 m. 18. 2. Ezekiel 1:2 Iehoiakims 5:5 This is Ierusalem 16:16 And of thy garments 16:19 floore 16:59 hast despised 24:4 pices 24:4 peace 25:2 m. 49. 27:10 thy men of warre 29:18, 19 Nebuchad-rezzar 31:4 the field 31:13 branches. 31:18 with the sword 35:10 mine 36:10 the waste 37:4 vnto 39:9 m. for them 42:12 directly 43:20 and one the 44:29 the trespasse offring 46:4 Sabbath Daniel 2:34 in pieces 11:6 shee shall be giuen vp 11:10 sonnes Hosea 14:3 Ashur Joel 2:11 m. and Amos 6:7 that goe captiue Obadiah 7 the confederacie Micah 1:5 for the sins Nahum 1:10 while they bee drunken Habakkuk 2:15 that puttest Zephaniah 3:14 m. 54. 1. Zechariah 3:7 m. walke 10:3 his goodly 1 Esdras 1:23 his Lord 1:29 king Iosias 2:16 m. Shimshai 5:5 m. Iudah 5:9 m. particulers 5:16 m. Bezai 5:26 Banuas 6:23 Ecbatane 8:54 m. Serebias 8:69 to wit 9:33 m. Matithiah Collation of 1617 folio with first and second editions 191 2 Esdras 2:33 at naught 4:3 Lord: and 7:40 Sannacherib 14:12 a tenth Tobit 5:18 m. Let not 11:14 thy holy Judith 16:4 stoppeth Wisdom 2:17 m. 27. 13:12 after, spending 18:11 m. 12:29 Ecclesiasticus 21:24 with the disgrace 23:4 m. Or, giant like 23:19 eyes of men Baruch 6:40 Caldeans Song of Three 4 (3) trueth Prayer of Manasses l. 2 the righteous 1 Maccabees 4:48 hollowed 7:1 m. lib. 12 12:21 stocke 2 Maccabees 4:13 not hie Priest 4:34 others Matthew 10:38 m. 24. 11:7 he 13:4 way side 13:31 like vnto a graine 13:45 good pearls 18:30 went 22:24 any man Mark 15:46 vnto the doore Luke 1:77 sinnes, 2:24 offer a sacrifice 10:23 m. Matth. 10:36 among the theeues 17:33 m. Mat. 16. John 5:29 m. 2 14:23 a man Acts 4:6 Caiphas 4:27 thy holy 6:12 came vpon 15:11 our Lord 16:7 suffered them 16:19 drew them into 21:2 Phenicia Romans 6:21 had you 10:21 haue I stretched 11:22 towards 16 subscription of the Church 2 Corinthians 7:14 speake Ephesians 6:21 yee may also Philippians 1:4 3 1 Thessalonians Title Paul the Apostle 1:9 turned James 5:4 Sabbaoth 1 Peter 1:22 selues 2:7 he is precious 2 Peter 2:6 Gomorrah 2 1st edn, correctly: ‘25. 46’; 2nd edn: ‘25. 16’; 1617: ‘25. 26’. 3 1st edn: ‘ioy’; 2nd edn: ‘ioy,’; 1617: ‘ioy.’ Appendix 6 Kilburne’s list of errors I give here all the errors listed by William Kilburne in Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles (Finsbury, 1660). Where possible, the editions are identified in relation to Herbert’s catalogue. General comments are given first, followed by references where Kilburne does not specify the error. Individual errors are givenwith the correct reading in parentheses. Where Kilburne is unclear I have reproduced his text. 1631, Barker and Assigns of Bill. 8 ◦ (H444) Exod. 20:14: Thou shalt commit adultery (shalt not commit) 1643 (identification uncertain) Gen. 36:24: Ana that found rulers in the wilderness (found the mules) Ruth 4:13: The Lord gave her corruption (conception) Luke 21:28: your condemnation draweth nigh (redemption) 1648, Field. 4 ◦ (H605) Ps. 105:29: slew their flesh (fish) 1653 Pearl Bible, Field. 24 ◦ (H635–7) Dedications and titles of Psalms omitted John 9:21: or who hath opened his eyes we know not (omitted) Rom. 6:13: instruments of righteousness (unrighteousness) [also in Field’s 1653 4 ◦ , H633] 1 Cor. 6:9: the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God (shall not inherit) 1655, Field. 12 ◦ (H647–8) ‘91 notorious faults’, including omission of 2 Cor. 13:6 1655, Field. 12 ◦ , another edition (?H647–8) ‘10. notable faults’ in Matthew 1–6 1656, Field. 12 ◦ (H651) Contents (chapter summaries) ‘generally are falsly perverted, and multilated, to the great impediment, and obstruction of the right understanding of the scope and Text of the Chapters’. Isa. 11:26, 13:3, 14:24, 17:8, 48:19, 49:22, ‘and so generally through the whole old Testament’; Luke 23:42, 51, 24:24, John 1:51, 2:9, 10, 3:21, 6:29, 33, 13:22, 14:13, 19:37, 21:17, Acts 1:7, 8:36 (‘a very base omission, and false justification of the words Kilburne’s list of errors 193 to the confusion of the sense’), ‘13. 1, 6, 26. he, for they, a grosse fault’ [Kilburne’s references appear confused here], Rom. 4:10, 6:23 (‘meer nonsense’), 1 John 4:20, 2 John 1, Rev. 1:1, 21:10 Isa. 28:17: the waters shall overthrow (overflow) John 5:2: Bethsaida (Bethesda) John 5:23: as they honour their Father (the Father) John 7:39: this spake he of the Spirits (of the Spirit) John 14:21: and he that loveth me, shall loved (shall be loved of my Father) John 15:17: These things I commanded (These things I command you) John 17:12: that the Scriptures might be fulfilled (Scripture) John 20:25: put my fingers (finger) Acts 4:15 (etc.): Counsel (Council) 1656. Hills and Field, London. 12 ◦ (identification uncertain; ?H660) ‘I amconfident, if the number of the Impression was as (I aminformed) 20000 there are as many faults therein, verbal, literal, and in the difference of the Italique words, (to the great corruptionof the Text,) andinfalse points of distinction: so that besides the base paper, and printing, and abridgement, and perversion of the Contents, and transposing and compounding of words, whereby it is very troublesome to be read, it is the worst of all the rest that are exposed to your view; as appeared palpably to the Parliament, whereby the sale thereof . . . was inhibited . . .’. Gen. 7:3, 10:19, 18:1, 27:45, 34:21, 46:17, Exod. 12:42, 16:19, 19:24, 26:8, 29:22, Lev. 7:38, 8:14, 10:18, 11:3, 13:55, 15:20, 22:12, 23:35, Num. 1:10, 10:29, 20:12, 23:15, 24:12, Deut. 5:29, 34:7 (‘a grosse fault’), Josh. 3:11 (‘another grand one’), 1 Sam. 24:9, 2 Sam. 8:12 (‘grosse faults’), ‘1 King. 20. 6. 30. the like’, 2 Kgs 3:2, 8:5, Chronicles, Ezra ‘generally false in the proper Names’, Esther 4:1 (‘a grosse fault’), ‘the Titles of divers Psalms are falsly named’, Eccles. 1:1; ‘in the Prophets are great numbers of verbal faults, and omissions, which I pretermit’; Luke 6:22, 7:43 (‘a base squabble and nonsense’), 19:44, John 3:21, 18:9, Acts 9:36, 10:14, 21:2 (‘nonsense’), 26:2 (‘nonsense’), Rom. 1:7, 9:23, 11:14, 1 Cor. 1:2, 14, 3:15, 2 Cor. 8:9, 2 Thess. 2:16, ‘Heb. 9. 8. 15’, Heb. 12:1, ‘2 Pet. 1. 11. 19’, 1 John 2:24, 4:10, Jude 4, Rev. 9:18, 17:4, 14, 19:10, 22:17. Gen. 1:21 (etc.): Cod (God) Gen. 15:3: Abraham (Abram) Exod. 40 summary: A Cloud cloudeth (covereth) Lev. 3:6: sacrifice of (omitted) Num. 6:14: ram [= 1611] (lamb) [= 1638] Num. 17 summary: kept (left) Num. 30 summary: delivered (divorced) Num. 31:30: sheep (flocks) Num. 34:9: out (on) Deut. 29:5: waked (waxen) Josh. 23:16: goods (gods) Judg. 9:17: advanced his life (adventured his life) 194 Appendix 6 Judg. 15:10: Samon (Samson) Neh. 8:17 had the children of Israel done so (had not) Job 4:6 [Kilburne cites this edition as giving the 1611 reading, and gives 1629’s reading – not 1638’s – as the correct reading] Prov. 29:13: he shall give delight thy soul (unto thy soul) Eccles. 8:17: Yet he shall not find it [Kilburne’s incorrect quotation] (omitted) Luke 9:13: loves (loaves) Luke 16:17: title of the law [= 1611] (tittle of the law) John 3:17: God sent not his Sou (Son) John 6:11: loves (loaves) John 18:36: if my kingdom were of this word (world) Acts 2:27: leave my oul in hell (soul) Acts 24:24: Jew [= 1611] (Jewess) Rom. 11:32: concluded all in unbelief (them all [‘to wit, the Jews’]) 1 Cor. 9:22: men (means) 2 Cor. 11:32: of the Damascenes [= 1611] (omitted) 1 Pet. 2 summary: exhorteth (dehorteth) 1 Pet. 2:21: leaving us as an example (leaving us an example [‘a dangerous Error’]) 1656. Dutch12 ◦ , falsely titledBarker andAssigns of Bill, 1638 (H529–35; Herbert gives further information about this notorious edition, its varieties and misprints) ‘Wherein are so many notorious Erratas, false English, Nonsense, and Corruptions, that inreading part of Genesis, I found30. grandfaults . . . Andinreading Ecclesiastes, Canticles, and the first 27. Chapters of Isaiah, I found almost an hundred grosse faults . . .’. Gen. 27:16: mouth of his neck (smooth) Gen. 29:13: she ran to meet him (he ran) Gen. 30:40: put them unto Labans cattle (put them not) 1657, Field, Cambridge. 8 ◦ (H656) Ps. 143:4: Therefore is my spirit over[whelmed] (omitted) ‘Many other faults, as I am well informed, of very great notoriety’ Singing Psalms (Sternhold and Hopkins), Field Ps. 67:2: that all the earth may know the way to worldly wealth (Godly wealth) Appendix 7 Blayney’s ‘Account of the collation and revision of the Bible’ The Gentleman’s Magazine, volume 39, November 1769, pp. 517–19 The Editor of the two editions of the Bible lately printed at the Clarendon Press thinks it his duty, now that he has completed the whole in a course of between three and four years close application, to make his report to the Delegates of the manner in which that work has been executed; and hopes for their approbation. Inthefirst place, accordingtotheinstructions hereceived, thefolioeditionof 1611, that of 1701, published under the direction of Bishop Lloyd, and two Cambridge editions of a late date, one inQuarto, the other inoctavo, have beencarefully collated, whereby many errors that were found in former editions have been corrected, and the text reformed to such a standard of purity, as, it is presumed, is not to be met with in any other edition hitherto extant. The punctuation has been carefully attended to, not only with a view to preserve the true sense, but also to uniformity, as far as was possible. Frequent recourse has been had 1 to the Hebrew and Greek Originals; and as on other occasions, so with a special regard to the words not expressed in the Original Language, but which our Translators have thought fit to insert in Ital- ics, in order to make out the sense after the English idiom, or to preserve the connexion. And though Dr Paris made large corrections in this particular in an edition published at Cambridge, there still remained many necessary alterations, which escaped the Doctor’s notice; in making which the Editor chose not to rely on his own judgment singly, but submitted them all to the previous examination of the Select Committee, and particularly of the Principal of Hertford College, and Mr Professor Wheeler. Alist of the above alterations was intended to have beengiven intothe Vice Chancellor at this time, but the Editor has not yet foundtime tomake it completely out. Considerable alterations have been made in the Heads or Contents prefixed to the Chapters, as will appear on inspection; and though the Editor is unwilling to enlarge upon the labour bestowed by himself in this particular, he cannot avoid taking notice of the peculiar obligations, which both himself and the public lie under to the Principal of Hertford College, Mr Griffith of Pembroke College, Mr Wheeler, Poetry Professor, and the late Warden of New College, so long as he lived to bear a part in it; who with a prodigious expence of time, and inexpressible fatigue to themselves, judiciously corrected and improved the rude and imperfect Draughts of the Editor. The running titles at the top of the columns in each page, how trifling a circum- stance soever it may appear, required no small degree of thought and attention. 1 ‘had been has’, Gentleman’s Magazine. 196 Appendix 7 Manyof the proper names beingleft untranslated, whose etymologywas necessary to be known, in order to a more perfect comprehension of the allusions in the text, the translation of them, under the inspection of the above named Committee, has been for the benefit of the unlearned supplied in the margin. Some obvious and material errors in the chronology have been considered and rectified. The marginal references, eveninBishopLloyd’s Bible, hadinmany places suffered by the inaccuracy of the Press; subsequent editions had copied those Errata, and added many others of their own; so that it became absolutely necessary to turn to and compare the several passages; which has been done in every single instance, and by this precaution several false references brought to light, which would otherwise have passed unsuspected. It has been the care of the Editor to rectify these, as far as he could, by critical conjecture, where the copies universally failed him, as they did in most of the errors discovered in Bishop Lloyd’s edition. In some few instances he confesses himself to have been at a loss in finding out the true reference, though the corruption was manifest in the want of any the most distant resemblance between the passages compared together. Cases of this sort indeed did not often occur; so that a very small number only of the old references are, with the sanction of the Committee, omitted, and their places more usefully supplied. It had been suggested by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, that an improvement might bemadeinthepresent editions of theBible, bytakinginanumber of additional references, of which many useful ones, as he supposed, might be furnished from other editions referredtoby him, andparticularly froma Scotchedition, of whichthe present Vice Chancellor was kind enough to lend a Copy. The references found in it, which were indeed very numerous, having been severally turned to and examined, such of them were selected as the Editor judged most pertinent, together with others that occurred from his own reading and observation. In doing this he has endeavoured to keep clear of mere fanciful allusions, of which too many presented themselves inthebeforenamedScotchedition; andtoadhereas near as possibletothe plan marked out in the former collection made by Bishop Lloyd; pointing out such passages chiefly, where the same history or the same name was introduced, the same matter treated of, or sentiment expressed, or at least where parallels might fairly be drawn; and sometimes where a similar use of a particular word or expression tended to illustrate the application of it, on another occasion. The number of References being thus augmented considerably, the Collection upon the whole will, it is hoped, be regarded as useful in the light of a Concordance, material as well as verbal, always at hand. In this state the Quarto Copy was sent to press; and the first proofs carefully collated with the Copy, both text and margin; after which the second proofs were again read, and generally speaking, the third likewise; not to mention the frequent revisions of proofs besides, which are common in correcting the press. This proved indeed a very tiresome and tedious task; but was not more than was absolutely necessary in order to attain the degree of accuracy that was wished. A particular attention was required with respect to the figures belonging to the marginal Refer- ences, where errors were continually creeping in after a manner that would appear Blayney’s ‘Account of the collation and revision . . . ’ 197 highly astonishing tothose, whohave never beenconcernedincorrecting multitudes of figures, as they came from the press. Whenthe QuartoSheets, were printedoff, the Forms were lengthenedout inorder tomakeuptheFolioEdition; indoingwhichtheparts wereoftensojumbledtogether, and such Confusion introduced by misplacing the References, and mistaking the Chronology, that nothing else would suffice than a fresh Collation of the whole with the Quarto Copy, and a repitition of almost the same trouble and care in the revisal, and in making up the running Titles anew, as had been used before. But the Editor thinks he has just reason to congratulate himself on the opportunity hereby given himof discovering and correcting some fewtrivial inaccuracies, which in spite of all his vigilance had escaped his notice in the Quarto Edition. So that the Folio Edition is rendered by this somewhat the more perfect of the two, and therefore more fit to be recommended for a standard Copy. The Editor humbly hopes this Account of his proceedings will not be unacceptable to the Board; and will think his time and pains not ill bestowed, if he shall have succeeded in his desire of giving satisfaction to those who honoured him with the employment, andof contributing inany wise to God’s honour, andthe public utility. Hertford College, B. Blayney Oct. 25, 1769. Appendix 8 Variant readings in the KJB text The following list gives the main variations in the KJB text and the readings adopted in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Readings are given in biblical order save that recurrent problems are grouped together where they occur first. The column headed ‘1611 and sources’ gives the first edition reading followed by details of the reading and annotation found in Bod 1602 or MS 98. ‘Variation’ gives the reading of later texts and information on the introduction and history of the reading; brackets are used for variants not found in the current text. ‘Original’ gives the original language reading for the words in question. ‘NCPB’ gives the reading adopted in the New Cambridge Paragraph Bible. Where a change is made to the current text, the decision is given in bold; where the change restores a 1611 reading, the decision is also underlined. General abbreviations B Bishops’ Bible CT Current Text G Geneva Bible He First edition, 1611 LXX Septuagint m margin MS 98 Lambeth Palace Library MS 98: ‘An English Translation of The Epistles of Paule the Apostle . . .’. NCPB New Cambridge Paragraph Bible R Rheims NT S Scrivener She Second edition, 1611 Abbreviations in notes on 1602 Bishops’ Bible with translators’ annotations * reading is uncertain ** reading is very uncertain ˆ point of insertion Bod 1602 Bishops’ Bible with annotations = Bod same as the printed text in Bod, no handwritten changes Variant readings in the KJB text 199 g letter ‘g’ added to a change in a different hand ins inserted above line with an insertion mark ncn no change noted to Bod text subst substituted wi written in without an insertion mark; always at end of word, often above the following punctuation mark wo written over (i.e. change is superimposed on the printed letter). The manuscript annotations in Bod usually lack punctuation. Notes that concern Bod readings or other incidental matters are given in brackets to distinguish them from notes on the textual problem. 1602 readings in parts of the text where Bod has no annotations are designated ‘1602’ andtakenfromUniversityMicrofilms International reel 1566. ‘[1602different]’ is used where 1602 has a quite different reading from 1611. Variations within the first edition Exod. 21:26: CUL Rare Books Syn 1.61.1 and Syn 2.61.1 read ‘them’ in v. 26, ‘him’ in v. 27; BS H 309(1) reads ‘him’ in v. 26. Song 2:7: Syn.1.61.1.: ‘he’; Syn.2.61.1. and all BS copies: ‘she’. Joel 3:14 m. displaced down one verse in some copies. 1 Esdras 5:58: ‘setters forward’, ‘seters forward’. 2 Macc. 4:40 m.: ‘Tyrannus’, ‘Tyranuus’. Ecclus. 44:4: ‘by their knowledge of’; omitted in some copies. 1 1 The last three noted in Wright, I, p. v. References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Epistle Dedicatory, 5th paragraph hope hopes hope Preface, p. 1, 2nd paragraph the other another the other Preface, p. 5, 1st paragraph any that went any other that went any that went Gen. 5:32; 6:10; 7:13 Sem = Bod; but at ch. 9 etc. ‘h’ ins. Shem, 1629 c¶ Shem 1611 ‘Shem’, Gen. 9:18 etc. (Here the translators start slowly; 1611 follows Bod annotations.) Gen. 6:5 God Bod: God. ‘The Lord’ subst. God, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬™¬π God Gen. 8:13 sixe hundredth and one yeere Bod: sixe hundred and one yeere; ncn. six hundredth and first year, 1638 (six hundred . . . , 1616, 1629) six hundredth and first year 1611 here follows B and G. Obsolete form not restored. 1 Kgs 6:1 in the foure hundred and fourescore yeere = Bod. . . . eightieth . . . , 1762 fourscore To change ‘fourscore’ to ‘eighty’ is to make a change of vocabulary, and therefore is not acceptable. 16:8 twentieth and sixt Bod: twentie and sixe. t subst. twenty and sixth, 1629 (sixth, 1613) twenty and sixth 200 16:23 the thirtie and one = Bod. the thirty and first, 1769 thirty and first Gen. 9:18, 23, 27; 10:1, 2, 21 Iaphet Bod: Japheth; ncn, 9:18; others: Japheth Japheth, 1629 rÉ∑ Japheth 1611: ‘Japheth’, Gen. 5:32 etc. Gen. 10:7 Sabtecha Bod: Sabtheca Sabtecha, 1817 8 o (Sabtecah, 1762, Sabtechah, 1769–1963) xf!<ò Sabtecha Gen. 10:14 Philistiim = Bod. Philistim, 1612 8 o , H316 (not 1613), 1629 c#•pZ Philistim B: ‘Philisthiim’, G: ‘the Philistims’. Cf. the other names in this verse, and ‘Philistims’ at Gen. 26:1, 8, 14, 15, 18 (1611). The only other places where 1611 has ‘iim’ involve double yod in the Hebrew, though 1611 usually gives ‘im’ for these. Gen. 10:16 and the Emorite Bod: and ˆ Emori. the ins. te wi. and the Amorite, She ïw2Wr0¨ and the Amorite ‘Amorite’ used consistently elsewhere. ‘Emorite’ remains in, e.g., 1629, 1638. Gen. 10:16 and the Girgasite Bod: and ˆ Girgasi. the ins. te wi. and the Girgasite (Girgashite, 1873) ßfiì·U and the Girgashite So 1611 elsewhere. Gen. 10:19 Sodoma and Gomorah Bod: Sodoma and Gomorra. h wi. Sodom, and Gomorrah, 1629 (Gormorrah, 1612 8 o , H316) ¬¬ w≈© ¬tIõ Sodom, and Gomorrah Contrast Gen. 14:11 etc.: ¬™.≈© ¬tIõ, 1611: ‘Sodome and Gomorrah’. 1611 may be a deliberate reflection of the Hebrew, but the final ¬ is probably directional. Gen. 15:7 etc. Caldees Chaldees (mostly 1638) c‹Cd or c‹CC Chaldees 1611 prefers ‘Caldees’ but also uses the modern form, ‘Chaldees’. Sometimes the Hebrew is . . . :, sometimes . . . :. 201 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Kgs 24:2 etc. Chaldees Bod: Chald . . . throughout. ncn 2 Kgs 25:4, 5, 10; Ezra 5:12. Neh. 9:7: Chaldees. Caldees subst. h in remaining vv where Bod gives information. Job 1:17 etc. Caldean Baruch 6:40; Acts 7:4 Chaldeans Chaldæans Xcìocicv Chaldeans Rest of Esther title Calde Gen. 15:18 In that same day = Bod. In the same day x¬U cÀ In that same day This common phrase is translated in various ways, including both 1611’s reading and the variation. Gen. 15:19 Kenizites Bod: Kenezites; *z ins. Kenizzites, 1629 -Ä;“ U Kenizzites Only occurrence, correctedby the Hebrew. B, G: ‘Kenizites’. (Here Bod differs from earlier B Bibles.) Gen. 16:6 But Abram Bod: But Abram. And subst. But Abram (And Abram, She) c÷i. ¬sx © And Abram Bod shows She reading was the translators’ original intention. Gen. 14:7 Kadesh Bod: Cades. *Kadesh subst. g. Kadesh :¬ ä Kadesh ; usually transliterated ‘K’; correction by the Hebrew and for consistency with 14:7. 16:14 Cadesh and Bered Bod: Cades and Bared. *Cadesh and Bered subst. g. Kadesh . . . , 1638 (First letter of Bod substitution at 14:7 unclear; here the change is interlinear. The other two changes are in the margin and are clearer.) 202 20:1 Cadesh and Shur Bod: Cades and Sur. Cadesh and Shur subst. g. Kadesh . . . , 1638 Gen. 19:21 concerning this thing = Bod. concerning this thing also, 1638 c› ¸oÑ r xBn ¬;‘j concerning this thing G has the more literal ‘also’. Gen. 22:7 Behold the fire and wood Bod: See, here is fire and wood. Behold the fire and wood subst. and the wood, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 cμ«W¨ :5W ¬T[ and wood Cf. Deut. 8:7, where He’s omission of the article is preferred to She’s inclusion. The argument is the same. G: ‘Behold the fire & the wood’. Gen. 23:10, 18 went inat the gates of his citie = Bod. . . . gate . . . , 1762 (v. 18, 1638) ج»¬¡¢ 5Õ went in at the gates of his city The same phrase occurs twice in 34:24: ‘went out of the gate of his citie’. 1762’s change reflects the Hebrew and agrees with the translators elsewhere, but 1611 also makes sense. Gen. 25:4 Abida Bod: Abida. *Abida subst. g. Abida, 1837 (Abidah, 1629–1963) :E>3 Abida Bod’s change looks like ‘Abidu’ but there are other places in this hand on this page where the top loop of ‘a’ has not been closed, leaving a falsely-apparent ‘u’. The tag g confirms that the tagger read ‘Abida’, the G rendering. ‘Abida’, even though it is not a change, is probably the intended reading. 203 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Gen. 26:1, 8, 14, 15, 18 Philistims Bod: Philistines; ncn (vv. 1, 8, 18); vv. 14 and 15 are struck through and rewritten; spelling here is uncertain. Philistines, 1629 c#•pZ Philistines ‘Philistim’ is only appropriate, because of the context, at Gen. 10:14. Elsewhere ‘Philistine’ is 1611’s standard form; ‘Philistines’ has already been used at 21:32 and 34. Gen. 31:1 and of that which was of our fathers Bod: and of our fathers goods. and of that which was of our fathers subst. and of that which was our father’s, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 :>1m ¬£3x and of that which was of our father’s This and the following entries all have the problem of ‘of ’ followed by a possibly redundant possessive. The later examples are changed because they all appear tautologous and are no longer possible English. In this case 1611 is restored because the English is not necessarily tautologous: it could mean ‘from our father’s goods’ (‘goods’ being implicit). The translators have made B and G’s version more literal, but like them maintains a difference between this phrase and the previous phrase even though the Hebrew does not necessarily warrant it. Lev. 22:10 a soiourner of the Priests Bod: a ghest of the Priests. soiourner subst. a sojourner of the priest, 1638 (a sojourner of the priest’s, 1873) ;ZI :¢Ør a sojourner of the priest 204 Deut. 23:25 the standing corne of thy neighbours Bod: thy neighbours corne. the standing corne of thy neighbours subst. the standing corn of thy neighbour, 1769 (neighbour’s, 1762) ¸¬¬ rrä the standing corn of thy neighbour 2 Kgs 22:12 Asahiah a seruant of the Kings Bod: Asahia a seruant of the kings. h wi. Asahiah a servant of the king’s, 1762 ¸kþU¬:¬ ¬ŸB≈ Asaiah a servant of the king = 2 Chr. 34:20. 2 Chr. 2:13 of Hurammy fathers Bod: whom my father Hiram did use. of subst. my fathers subst. of Huram my father’s, 1762 >1 c¬ ¬m of Huram my father’s Perhaps should change to ‘of Huram my father’. >1 c¬ ¬m is now taken as a name, ‘Huram-Abi’. 2 Chr. 34:20 Asaiah a seruant of the Kings Bod: Asa ˆ a, a seruant of the kings. i ins. h wi. Asaiah a servant of the king’s, 1762 ¸kþU¬:¬ ¬ŸB≈ Asaiah a servant of the king = 2 Kgs 22:12. 205 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Matt. 26:51 a seruant of the high Priests = Bod. a servant of the high priest’s, 1762 (servant of the high priest, 1817 8 o ) :cv oc0ìcv :c0 ópyitptc, a servant of the high priest So Mark 14:47; Luke 22:50. Luke 15:17 hired seruants of my fathers = Bod. hired servants of my father’s, 1762 uioûici :c0 tc:pc, ucu hired servants of my father Gen. 36:14 the daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon Bod: the daughter of Ana ˆ , daughter of Sebeon. h ins. g. Zi subst. g. the daughter of Anah the daughter of Zibeon, 1629 ;:<μrÀ ¬n≈r9 the daughter of Anah, daughter of Zibeon 1629’s change is fussy and lacks direct justification in the Hebrew. Gen. 36:33 Bozra Bod: Bosra; z subst. g. Bozrah, 1613 ¬ë≥Õ Bozrah So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 1:44 Bosrah Bod: Bosra. h wi Bozrah, 1638 Gen. 37:36 Medanites Bod: Madianites; ‘i’ wo first ‘a’. Midianites, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 cÄ◊P U Midianites Though 1611 reflects a spelling variation in the Hebrew, the received change keeps the narrative clear. Bod shows the 1612 change to be the translators’ original intention. 206 Gen. 38:30 Zarah = Bod. Zarah ¬êΩ Zerah 46:12 and Zerah Bod: and Zarah; e subst. and Zerah (and Serah, 1630; and Zarah, 1769–1963) ¬êΩ™ and Zerah Gen. 39:1 of the hand of the Ishmeelites Bod: bought him of the Ishmaelites. e subst. of the hands of the Ishmeelites, 1629 cpx«u• U ¬(y of the hand of the Ishmeelites 1611 literal. Gen. 39:16 her lord = Bod. his lord, 1638 nI3 her lord V. 19, nI3; 1611: ‘his master’, and v. 20: _ú qI3; 1611: ‘Iosephs master’ lend support to 1638’s correction. 1611 appears to have accepted Bod’s reading as appropriate to the context. Gen. 46:17 Isui Bod: Jisui. Isui (Ishui, She) Æ•ª Ishui At 1 Sam. 14:49 the identical Hebrew for a different character is given as ‘Ishui’, 1611, CT. Gen. 47:6 man of actiuitie = Bod. men of activity, 1762 ¬ª\¶p. men of activity 1611’s error comes from Bod. Elsewhere the phrase is plural. See p. 36. Gen. 47:18 also had our heards = Bod. also hath our herds, 1629 ¬tZŒU ¬qãy ÄI3¬0 also had our herds Though grammatically awkward, 1611’s reading is possible. Cf. Lev. 5:10. Exod. 6:21 Zichri Bod: Sichri; Z ins; g. Zichri, 1817 8 o (Zithri, 1769–1963) ïg: Zichri 207 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Exod. 15:25 made a statute Bod: made them an ordinance and a law; a statute subst. made for them a statute, 1638 ;c ج cB made a statute 1611’s omission may be deliberate, as Bod appears to show. ‘For them’ is not necessary to the sense. Exod. 21:32 thirty shekels = Bod (sicles) thirty shekels of silver, 1638 c߬• _ôD cpä• thirty shekels ‘Shekels of silver’ usually represents _ôE ¬â%, or _ôE. The omission may be deliberate, following the example of Bod. Exod. 23:13 and make no mention of the names of other gods Bod: names; ncn (rest of this is rewritten) . . . name . . . , 1769 cïa3 c[n2 c¶¨ ¬H¿ü 4¬ names 1769 corrects in the light of the Hebrew (LXX and Vulgate use singular). Though the plural may be deliberate, Josh 23:7 is very similar; 1611: ‘neither make mention of the name of their gods’. 1611 is a reasonable adjustment for context, so is, as Bod also indicates, probably deliberate. Exod. 23:23 the Hiuites Bod: Heuites; the Hiuites subst. the Hivites, 1817 8 o and F o , 1857 1908a Oxf. (and the Hivites, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629; and the Hivites, 1837, 1857 H1906, 1941, 1963) bU the Hivites 208 Exod. 26:8 and the eleven shalbe all of one measure = Bod. and the eleven curtains . . . , 1629 ¬îC¬ h•¡m r\. r…ïπ and the eleven shall be all of one measure The addition makes the rendering more literal, but is not essential for the sense, since ‘curtains’ is understood. Exod. 29:26 consecrations Bod: consecration; ncn. consecration, 1762 c6¬ ŽU consecrations Sometimes given as plural, sometimes singular, as in this passage (‘a ram of consecration’, v. 22, ‘the flesh of the consecrations’, v. 34). The singular may perhaps be a better translation, but the plural is not wrong. Exod. 31:10 clothes of seruice Bod: vestiments to minister in; clothes of service subst. ¬ë. U ¬ fl– cloths of service ¬Qà can be both a garment and a cloth. The same ambiguity existed with ‘clothes’; the distinction between ‘clothes’ and ‘cloths’ begins about 1600 and belongs to the nineteenth century (OED). The problem here is to determine whether the KJB translators chose between the two meanings and, if they did, what their choice was. The B renderings indicate ‘clothes’, so does G’s ‘garments’, used uniformly in these verses. However, G stretches the meaning of ‘garments’ in its annotation to 39:1: ‘as couerings for the Arke, the Candlesticke, the Altars, and such like’. This suggests ‘cloths’. Only in these verses do the KJB translators alter B’s ‘vestments’ to ‘clothes’; elsewhere (Exod. 29:21 etc.) they change 35:19 cloathes of seruice Bod: ministring garments; clothes of service subst. ¬ë. U ¬ fl– 39:1 clothes of seruice Bod: vestiments of ministration; clothes subst, service subst. ¬ëC¬ R> 39:41 clothes of seruice Bod: ministring vestments; clothes of service subst. ¬ë. U ¬ R– 209 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes ‘vestments’ to ‘garments’, and nowhere else do they use ‘clothes’. Either they have, cleverly, matched the Hebrew ambiguity by avoiding the clarity of ‘garments’, or, equally cleverly, they have decided that the sense is ‘cloths’ but allowed the other sense to remain if required. The sense ‘cloths’ links with the KJB’s main use of ‘cloth’, also translating ¬QÃ, in connection with ‘the work in the tabernacle’, Num. 4:6–13. Modern English cannot preserve the translator’s apparently deliberate ambiguity, and so must give what appears to be their preferred sense, ‘cloths’. Exod. 34:25 of Passeouer = Bod. of the passover, 1762 ¬òYU of passover 1762’s correction in the light of the Hebrew makes the English phrase identical with NT examples, e.g. Matt. 26:2, but is unnecessary. Exod. 35:11 his taches, & his barres Bod: and his rings, his boords, his bars; his *taches and his barres subst; g. his taches, and his boards, his bars, 1638 öëãr0 §ëãr0¨ kïŒr0 his taches, and his boards, his bars G: ‘and his taches & his boards, his barres’. Here 1611 appears to have accidentally omitted part of the G rendering; the error appears to be the Bod scribe’s. 210 Exod. 35:29 by the hands of Moses = Bod. . . . hand . . . , 1629 ¬£w¬∂Œ hands 1611 is not literal but makes sense. Cf., e.g., Lev. 8:36, same Hebrew, 1611: ‘by the hand of Moses’. Exod. 37:19 Three bowles made he after the fashion of almonds Bod: And in one branch three bowles, ˆ made like vnto almonds; And after the fashion of almonds, in one branch ins. Three bowls made after . . . , 1629 c»>R ¬§¬• c¬ ; : u Three bowls made after Error corrected; pual participle, to be almond-shaped. Cf. later in the verse, same word: ‘made like almonds’. This suggests ‘he’ came in accidentally. (Bod does not correspond to 1611.) Exod. 38:11 the hoopes of the pillars, and their fillets of siluer. Bod: but the knops and hoopes of the pillars ˆ were of siluer. hookes subst. g. & their fillets ins. g. the hookes of the pillars . . . , She the hooks of the pillars . . . ‘Nail, hook’, elsewhere, e.g. the adjacent verses, translated ‘hook[e]s’ in He. Bod shows ‘hoopes’ is probably a printer’s error, influenced by the B text. (1602’s text differs from 1568. ‘and hoopes’ is on a separate line from ‘knops’; ‘hookes’ is substituted for ‘knops’. ‘were’ is not deleted.) Lev. 1:8 the wood that is in the fire which is vpon the altar Bod: the wood that is in the fire ˆ on the altar. *which is subst. vp ins. on the fire, 1638 cμ«W¬¡ in the fire This might be a typographical error in 1611, but that is uncertain; elsewhere in the verse, ¬¡ is translated ‘upon’. (‘which’ is unclear, ‘is vp’ is clear; because ‘on’ is retained, reading becomes ‘vpon’.) 211 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Lev. 1:9 the inwards = Bod. his inwards, 1638 Ø:ìç¨ the inwards 1638 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew. Perhaps the translators were a little careless in what they allowed from 1602, but the reading appears deliberate. Lev. 2:4 an vnleauened cake = Bod. unleavened cakes, 1638 rsr rج\ an unleavened cake Same as 1:9. Lev. 5:10 he had sinned = Bod. he hath sinned, 1762 xLk he had sinned G also has ‘hath’. The odd tense was acceptable. Cf. Gen. 47:18. Lev. 7:23 no maner fat = Bod. no manner of fat, 1762 :ka¬E no manner fat Though ‘manner of ’ is used elsewhere, e.g. 7:26, 27, the 1611 idiom is retained. 14:54 all manner plague = Bod (‘maner’). all manner of plague, 1762 :O}¬f all manner plague Lev. 10:14 the sacrifice of peace offerings Bod: the ˆ peace offerings. sacrifice of ins. the sacrifices . . . , 1629 a<- y the sacrifice . . . 1629 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew, but 1611 appears to be deliberate. 212 Lev. 11:3 cheweth cud Bod: chaweth ˆ cud. e ins. the ins. cheweth the cud, 1629 ¬ë‡ rj≈r cheweth cud No article in the Hebrew. Bod confirms that the 1629 correction was the translators’ original intention, but there is a strong chance that they changed their mind in the light of the Hebrew. Bod shows ‘the’ was also inserted in the next verse, as printed in 1611; here the article is found in the Hebrew. Lev. 11:10 nor scales = Bod. and scales, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) rAâCਠnor scales 1769’s correction is unnecessary and arguably inconsistent with v. 12. Lev. 13:29 hath a plague Bod: hath a sore. plague subst. have a plague, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) :On : ¬∏¬ ª hath a plague Contrast v. 38, 1611: ‘if a man also or a woman haue’. Both forms are possible (‘hath’ follows ‘if ’ and a singular subject at, e.g., Num. 30:12). Lev. 15:33 her whichis vncleane = Bod. her that is unclean, 1769 ¬1xM her which is unclean 1611 has chosen not to correct B or G; both use ‘which’. ‘Her which’ survives at Micah 7:10 and Matt. 19:9. Lev. 17:14 Ye shall not eat the blood of no manner of flesh Bod: Ye shall eate the blood of no maner of flesh. ncn. Ye shall eat . . . , She, 1612 Q o s, 1613 F o and Q o 4¬ ¬BÕ¬E c” ¬h4r Ye shall eat Though this might be deliberate, it is inconsistent with 1611’s practice elsewhere. In each of Lev. 7:23, 26, 23:31, Num. 28:18 and Deut. 4:15, where the Hebrew puts the negative with the verb, 1611 puts the negative with ‘manner’. Most striking is Deut. 4:15: ¬n.!¬E c]6¬ 4¬ H ‘for ye saw no manner of similitude’. 213 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Lev. 18:3 and after the doings of land of Canaan Bod: and after the doings of the land of Chanaan and after the doings of the land of Canaan, She (noted by Wright), 1613 ;¡mF,í0 ¬. ≈rg and after the doings of the land of Canaan G also has the article. 1611 has the article earlier in the verse, though it is again omitted in the Hebrew. Lev. 19:34 shalbe as one borne amongst you Bod: shall be as one of your owne nation. borne amongst you subst. shall be unto you as one born among you, 1638 (‘amongst’ retained by 1638, 1762, 1817 8 o ; ‘among’ 1769) ¬∏¬ ª cDy ¬ë¿0F ¬fiU ¬‡U cel ce!6 shall be as one born amongst you 1638 is a correction to include a somewhat redundant cel. 1611 appears to have omitted it deliberately. Lev. 20:11 shalbe put to death Bod: let them both die. of th¯ e shalbe put to death their bloud shalbe vpp¯ o them subst. shall surely be put to death, 1638 rurØ. shall be put to death 1638 corrects in the light of the Hebrew and the translators’ rendering of the same words in the following verses. Bod shows 1611 to be deliberate. Lev. 23:20 for the Priests = Bod. for the priest, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ;ZIj for the priests 1638 is a correction in the light of the Hebrew; so translated at Num. 6:20, 1 Sam. 2:15. Nevertheless, 1611 makes sense. 214 Lev. 23:22 the field = Bod. thy field, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸¬ B the field The/thy common variation between He and She Bibles; it’s one of the easier mistakes for a printer to make. But there is no evidence besides the Hebrew that 1611 is an error. Lev. 25:6 the stranger = Bod. thy stranger, 1638 ¸<§Ørm the stranger Lev. 25:23 for the land is mine, for ye were strangers Bod: for the land is mine, and ye but strangers. *for ye are subst. for the land is mine; for ye are strangers, 1616, 1629 ,í1W pš cïSš for the land is mine; for ye are strangers The correction seems appropriate in the light of the parallel construction of the phrases. Though the reading of the substitution in Bod is not absolutely certain, I think it is correct, and so take ‘were’ as an error. Lev. 25:31 walles = Bod. wall, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬tc walls 1769 corrects in the light of the Hebrew, but 1611 makes sense. Lev. 26:23 And if ye will not be reformed by these things, but will walke contrary vnto me Bod: And if yee may not bee reformed by these things, but shall walke contrary vnto me. will subst. g. will subst. . . . reformed by me by these things . . . , 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) 4¬ ¬¬ 5Œc6¨ p ¬õr reformed by these things The addition reflects the Hebrew and adds something otherwise missed. Yet it is clumsy; presumably the translators thought p redundant and therefore omitted it. 215 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Lev. 26:40 If they shall confesse the iniquitie of their fathers Bod: And they shall confesse their misdeeds, and the misdeeds of their fathers. *If subst. iniquitie subst. g. iniquities subst. . . . their iniquity, and the iniquity . . . , 1616, 1629 (the iniquities, 1613 F o ) cn≈r0 ¬©r [¨ c†: 3 ;≈r0¨ their iniquity, and the iniquity Error corrected. G: ‘Then they shall confesse their iniquitie, & the wickednes of their fathers’. (This seems likely to be an error in following the work of the translators on Bod. g correctly notes the one G reading.) Num. 1:2, 18, 20 by their polle Bod: head by head. by their polle subst (each example). . . . polls, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) c†nflmTm . . . poll ‘Polles’, v. 22 and 1 Chr. 23:3, 24, for the same Hebrew supports 1769, but ‘poll’ can perhaps have a plural sense, so is retained. Num. 3:13 mine they shall be = Bod. mine shall they be, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬ ª p mine they shall be Num. 4:22 Take also the summe of the sonnes of Gershon, throughout the houses of their fathers, by their families. = Bod. . . . throughout the houses of their fathers . . . c†: 3 r=m houses The phrase is common (see Numbers 1 passim) and, except in the two verses from Numbers, translated as singular by 1611. Unusually in Hebrew, the plural of ‘house-of-a-father’ is not ‘houses-of- a-father’ or ‘houses of fathers’, but normally ‘house-of-[the]-fathers’, r:1Wr=. 1611 is restored since it is not a mistranslation and fits the context. 216 Num. 4:40 Euen those that were numbred of them, throughout their families, by the houses of their fathers, were two thousand. Bod: and houses . . . by the subst. . . . by the house of their fathers . . . , 1769 c†: 3 r=m houses 1 Chr. 7:2 40 heads of their fathers house Bod: heads over the houses of their fathers. of subst. heads of their father’s house, 1762, 1769 r=m cßx÷ c†:3 rØ:1Wr= ¶xë heads of their fathers’ house These are some of several places where S claims ‘the apostrophe is placed right for the first time in the Cambridge Paragraph Bible’ (p. 152 n.). He gives ‘fathers’ house’. Because 1611’s normal rendering of the phrase is ‘the house of their fathers’, I follow S, but, taking Num. 4:22, 40 as exceptions, retain ‘house’, singular (in Ezra and Nehemiah, ‘seed’, singular, follows). Ezra 2:59 their fathers house = Bod. their father’s house, 1769 (fathers’, 1884) c†Ø:3rœ their fathers’ house Neh. 7:61 their fathers house = Bod. their father’s house, 1769 c†Ø:3rœ their fathers’ house Num. 5:19 5:20 If no man haue lyen = Bod. some man hath lien = Bod. If no man have lain, 1769 (lain) some man have lain, 1629 H425, 1769 (lain) If no man have lain some man hath lain See note to Lev. 13:29. 217 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Num. 6:14 and one lambe Bod: and a ram. one lambe subst. and one ram, 1638 ¬k0¬ª.¨ and one lamb 1638 corrects an error, but Bod shows ‘lamb’ was deliberate. Num. 7:31, 55 one siluer charger of an hundred and thirty [thirtie, v. 55] shekels Bod: a siluer charger of an hundred and thirtie sicles. one subst. shekels subst (both vv). one silver charger of the weight of an hundred and thirty shekels, 1762 r\. _ôDr¬ ≈à ¬1x .: ¬• ¬lä•y one silver charger of a hundred and thirty shekels In vv. 13, 19, 25, 37, 49, 61, 67, 73 and 79, 1611 has: ‘one siluer charger, the weight whereof was an hundred and thirty shekels’ (v. 13 has ‘thereof ’; all = Bod). B consistently gives ‘a siluer charger of an hundred and thirtie sicles’. In these vv. ‘a’ is struck through and ‘the’ subst; ‘of’ is struck through, ‘the weight thereof was’ subst. In v. 43 ‘a’ is struck through and ‘the’ subst; ‘of the weight’ is ins after ‘charger’. 1611 follows Bod in each instance. See p. 108. Num. 7:43 7:61 a siluer bowle a siluer bowle Bod: a siluer boule. one subst (both vv). one silver bowl, 1638 (not CUP; not in 1762; 1769 = 1638) _ôD ¬k0 ;ë¿y _ôD ¬k0 ;ë¿y a silver bowl a silver bowl There is a question of consistent practice in relation to vv. 31 and 55 (see above). However, the variation looks deliberate. See p. 108. Num. 7:48, 53; 10:22 1 Chr. 7:26; 9:4 Ammiud = Bod. Amihud = Bod. Ammihud, 1638 Ammihud, 1629 ¬¬Ž¡ ¬¬Ž¡ Ammihud In other places, 1611: ‘Ammihud’. Correction is consistent and follows Hebrew. 218 Num. 7:54, 59; 10:23 Pedazur = Bod. Pedahzur, 1638 ¬s¬EZ Pedahzur Cf. 1:10, ¬s¬¬ Z;Ã, 1611: ‘sonne of Pedahzur’ (despite the Hebrew variation, this is the same person). Num. 9:18 they rested in the tents Bod: they lay still. rested in the tents subst. they rested in their tents, 1769 :`∂ they rested in the tents Though 1611 uses ‘their’ in vv. 17, 20 and 22, it is not necessary, so omissible here. Num. 20:5 or vines Bod: nor vines. or of vines, 1769 ;ÉQ¨ or vines ‘Of’ is optional; 1611 uses it for some of these nouns, but probably varies deliberately here. Num. 21:24 Iabok Bod: Jaboc. k wo c. Jabbok, 1629 ;—∂ Jabbok 1611 elsewhere: ‘Iabbok’. Num. 24:6 by the riuer side Bod: by the riuers side. ncn. by the river’s side, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629, 1762 ¬Wn o≈ by the river’s side The evidence of Bod coupled with the earliness of the appearance in print of the reading make it likely that this was the translators’ intention. Num. 26:6, 21 Hesron . . . , Hesronites = Bod. Hezron . . . Hezronites, 1769 etc., inc. 1817 8 o (Hezronites, She 3) r\W•y ;ó≥]m Äó≥]U Hezronites He: ‘Of Hesron the family [familie, v. 21] of the Hesronites’. He transliterates as ‘Hezron’ (e.g. Gen. 46:9) and as ‘Hesron’. ‘Hezronites’ would seem to be the better form to settle on for consistency since both are allowable. 1 Chr. 5:3 Ezron = Bod Hezron, 1629 ;¬≥] Hezron Num. 26:44 Iimna Bod: Jemna. i wo e. Jimna ¬nuª Jimnah This name is variously rendered by 1611, ‘Iimnah’ (Gen. 46:17), ‘Iimna’ (Num. 26:44) – these are the same person – and ‘Imnah’ (1 Chr. 7:30). The spelling is corrected by the Hebrew here to conform to Gen. 46:17. See also 2 Chr. 31:14. 219 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Num. 26:58 Korathites Bod: Corathites. K subst. Korathites (Korahite, 1873) b¬ ;… U Korahites So 1611 at 1 Chr. 9:19, 31. Num. 30:8 disallowe = Bod. disallowed, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) xÄŸ disallow Hiphil imperfect. Num. 33:35, 36 Ezion-gaber Bod: Ezeon gaber. e wo i. ¬:fi ;≥¬ Ezion-geber The commonest form of the name as established in 1629 is followed. This is one place spelt two different ways in the Hebrew. 1611 does not follow the Hebrew spellings precisely; after the first three examples it prefers to change ‘Gaber’ to ‘Geber’. Deut. 2:8 Ezion-Gaber Bod: Ezion Gaber. ncn. ¬:fi ;≥¬ 1 Kgs 9:26 Ezion Geber Bod: Azion Gaber. e subst. Ezion-geber, 1629 [1638 = 1611] ¬:Q ;≥¬ Ezion-geber 22:48 Ezion Geber Bod: Esion Gaber. z subst. e subst. Ezion-geber, 1629 ¬:fi ;≥¬ 2 Chr. 8:17 Ezion Geber Bod: Ezion Gaber. e subst. Ezion-geber, 1629 ¬:Q ;≥¬ 20:36 Ezion-Geber Bod: Ezion Gaber. e subst. Ezion-geber (Ezion-Gaber, Ezion-gaber 1638–1963) ¬:fi ;≥¬ 220 Num. 36:3 whereinto Bod: which. whereinto subst. whereunto, 1629 whereinto Deut. 4:25 and shalt haue remained = Bod. ye shall have remained, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) cgp¢:¨ and shalt have remained See p. 107. Deut. 4:32 God created man vpon earth = Bod. . . . upon the earth, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 ,¬ 1W¬¡ upon the earth ,¬ 1W¬¡ occurs 107 times. Usually it is translated using an article or demonstrative, seven times the article is omitted. Four verses later the article is omitted from both the following phrases, ‘out of heauen . . . and vpon earth’ (similarly Josh. 2:11; 1 Kgs. 8:23; Eccles. 5:2 [= 5:1]). Jer. 16:13 (and similarly 22:28), ,í1W¬¡ r4:U ,¬ 1W ¬¡x, is rendered: ‘out of this land into a land’; here the definite article is inappropriate in English, because it is a land not before mentioned, a land ‘that yee knowe not’. So the lack of change to all except Deut. 4:32 is correct: the translators’ decisions are clear. This one verse is probably a 1602 printer’s error (other B and G have ‘vpon the earth’); Bod shows it is not a 1611 printer’s error. The correction was made early, seems to read better and reflects the Hebrew. 221 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Deut. 4:48 Sion Sion ;7. Sion Hebrew spelling preserved. Ps. 65:1 Sion Sion (Zion, 1817 8 o , 1867) ; μ Zion These changes establish uniform spelling for ;Øμ. The standard NT and Apoc. spelling is ‘Sion’. 2:6; 9:11, 14; 14:7; 20:2; 48:2, 11, 12; 50:2; 51:18; 53:6; 74:2; 76:2; 78:68; 97:8 Sion Zion, 1638 ; μ Zion All 1611 uses noted here = Bod. 69:35 Sion Zion, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ; μ Zion Deut. 4:49 And all the plaine of this side Iordan Bod: And all the plaine on the other side Jordane. of this subst. . . . on this side . . . , 1617, 1629 ¬:« ¬;¬ ≈W¬f¨ ;¬ ¬ (U of this side ‘On this side’ usually translates ;¬ ¬ (U ¬:«Œ, as in v. 47. So the translators may be reflecting the absence of Œ. ;¬ ì(U ¬:« occurs two other times, ‘on yonder side Iordane’ (Num. 32:19) and ‘beyond Iordan’ (Isa. 8:23 [= 9:1]). Bod shows ‘of ’ was deliberate. Deut. 5:29 keepe my commandements = Bod. keep all my commandments, 1629 üØ≥y¬E keep my commandments 1629 corrects by the Hebrew. 222 Deut. 9:10 of fire = Bod. of the fire, 1701 H868 :5W of fire Ten other occurrences all ‘of the fire’, but the general sense may be deliberate. Deut. 15:11 (end) the land Bod: thy land. the land subst. thy land, 1629 (the land, 1817 8 o and F o ) ¸±ì.Œ the land The Hebrew contrasts with ,í1W, ‘the land’, earlier in the verse. 1629 appears to be a correction of a slip, yet Bod confirms that the ‘slip’ was deliberate. Presumably the translators judged ‘thy’ to be redundant here. Deut. 16:4 in all thy coasts = Bod. . . . coast, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸m?fl¬fŒ coasts Same phrase at Exod. 13:7: ‘in all thy quarters’. ¬5ëCª ¬?fl¬fŒ (2 Sam. 21:5): ‘in any of the coasts of Israel’. ‘Coasts’ is the more natural English form to follow ¬fŒ, so is probably deliberate, following B and G exactly. Judg. 19:29 all the coasts of Israel Bod: all quarters of Israel. the *coaste subst. all the coasts of Israel (coast, 1769) ¬5ëCª ¬:fl ¬: Œ all the coasts of Israel Sometimes translated singular, sometimes plural in 1611. Deut. 16:5 the gates = Bod. thy gates, 1616, 1629 ¸¬ √• the gates 223 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Deut. 20:7 lest he die in battell Bod: least he die in the battell. g. . . . in the battle, 1629, 1769 (not 1638, 1762) ¬tkmŽÀ in battle The correction conforms to the previous two verses and to preceding versions. Bod confirms that the omission of the article in 1611 (as in some other places) is deliberate. Deut. 26:1 the Lord Bod: the Lord thy God. the Lord thy God, 1629 ¸Vn2 ¬™¬π the Lord 1629 follows B and G. 1611 appeared to be a printer’s omission, but Bod shows that it goes back to the translators. See p. 41. Deut. 27:12 Gerizzim Bod: Gariz ˆ im. e subst. z ins. g. Gerizim, 1769 c: ïfl Gerizim So 1611 elsewhere. Deut. 28:23 the heauen = Bod. thy heaven, 1638 ¸s& the heaven Contrast ,í1W¨ (‘and the earth’) later in the verse. Deut. 28:29 noone dayes = Bod. noonday, 1762 cª¬ ¬ s À noondays The Hebrew is dual, as at other verses, see esp. Job 5:14, so ‘noon dayes’ is possible. (The same reading is found in B and G; both also use the phrase in the margin to 2 Sam. 12:11.) 224 Deut. 28:42 locusts Bod: wormes. the *locust locust, 1612 8 o s, 1629 ¬∞lwU locusts B: ‘wormes’, G: ‘grashopper’. B, following G, notes: ‘Under this one sort, he comprehendeth all kinde of vermine, whiche are wont to consume ye fruites of the earth’. Evidently translators considered either singular or plural could have this implication. 1611 is possible, so retained. Deut. 32:15; 33:5, 26 Iesurun Bod strikes through 32:15, 33:5 and the relevant part of 33:26; Jesurun ins. Jeshurun, 1638; 33:5, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 ;¬: π Jeshurun Isa. 44:2 Iesurun 1602: righteous. Jesurun (Jeshurun 1616, Amer. 1867 [not 1629, 1638, 1762, 1769]) ;¬: π Jeshurun Change for consistency and correctness. Josh. 3:10 Girgashites Bod: the Gergesites. e wo i. a subst. h ins. the Girgashites, 1612 8 o s, 1629 ßfiì·U the Girgashites Bod adds weight to the 1612 8 o s, 1629 reading; ‘the’ may have been deliberately omitted at a late stage, but it is difficult to understand why. Josh. 3:11 Behold, the Arke of the Couenant, euen the Lord of all the earth, Behold, the ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the earth, 1629 rïŒU ;ó3 ¬T[ ,í1W¬E ;ó3 Behold, the ark of the covenant, even the Lord of all the earth, 1629’s interpretation is followed by some (at least) modern translations, but 1611’s reading remains possible. 225 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Bod: Beholde, the Arke of the couenant of the Lord of all the world. earth subst. Josh. 3:15 at the time Bod: all the time. at subst. all the time, 1638 xπ ¬I at the time Though ‘all the time’ is 1611’s normal rendering, Bod confirms that 1611’s reading comes from a deliberate action of the translators. Josh. 7:14 by housholdes: and the housholdes Bod: by housholds: and the houshold ˆ . s ins. . . . and the household, 1616, 1629 rªÀU¨ c#Õj and the households The translators appear to have deliberately ignored the change of number in the Hebrew. Josh. 7:26 the place = Bod. that place, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) x¬U cØ;OU the place Josh. 10:1, 3 Adoni-zedek Bod: Adonizedec. ncn in either v. Adoni-zedek, 1817 8 o (Adoni-zedec, 1769–1963) ;F±ÄI3 Adoni-zedek Josh. 10:10 Bethoron = Bod. Beth-horon, 1629 ;óجr= Beth-horon 1611 gives this form at Josh. 21:22. (Bod shows that the translators did not do anything to this word until later, in spite of 1602’s inconsistencies; when they did deal with it they failed to achieve consistency.) 226 16:3, 5 Bethoron Bod: Beth-horon. ncn. 10:11 Bethoron = Bod. 1 Sam. 13:18 Bethoron = Bod. Beth-horon, 1629 ;جc rœ 1 Chr. 7:24 Bethoron = Bod. Beth-horon, 1629 ;ججrœ 1 Macc. 3:16, 24; 7:39; 9:50 Bethoron = 1602. Beth-horon, 1762, 7:39, 9:50 (Bethhoron, 1769) Bciûcpcv Bethoron There is a temptation to retain the 1769 reading for consistency, but the names in the Apocrypha are not consistent with the OT. Josh. 10:12 19:42 Aialon, Aiialon Ajalon, 1629 ;جÿ. Aijalon Aijalon This place is inconsistently transliterated ‘Aialon’, ‘Aiialon’ and ‘Aijalon’, 1611, and ‘Aijalon’ and ‘Ajalon’ in CT. 1 Chr. 6:69; 8:13; 2 Chr. 11:10 Aialon Aijalon, 1629 Aijalon Aijalon 1611 = Bod throughout. (See p. 35). 2 Chr. 28:18 Aialon Ajalon Aijalon Josh. 11:2 Cinneroth Bod: Ceneroth. First e wo i. n ins. g. Chinneroth, 1769 rجpš Chinneroth 1611 gives ‘Chinnereth’ at Num. 34:11 and Deut. 3:17. CT reflects the variant Hebrew endings, and, with the exception of 1 Kgs 15:20, regularises the beginning. 12:3 Cinneroth Bod: Ceneroth. ncn. Line over ‘ne’ doubles ‘n’. Chinneroth rجpš 227 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 13:27 Cinneroth Bod: Cenereth. First e wo i. e subst. Long line over ‘ner’ doubles ‘n’: ‘nner’. Chinnereth, 1769 (Cinnereth, 1629) r¬ :š Chinnereth 19:35 Cinnereth Bod: Cenereth. First e wo i. Line over ‘ne’ doubles ‘n’. Chinnereth, 1769 r¬ š 1 Kgs 15:20 Cinneroth Bod: Ceneroth. ncn. Line over ‘ne’ doubles ‘n’. Cinneroth rجpš Chinneroth Josh. 11:17 Seir, vnto Baal-Gad = Bod. Seir, even unto Baal-Gad, 1638 ¬fi ¬¡À¬¡¨ ¬». Seir, unto Baal-Gad Though 1638 conforms to 1611’s normal practice, 1611 is quite possible. Josh. 12:2 vpon the banke of the riuer of Arnon Bod: beside the riuer of Arnon. vppon the banke of the riuer of Arn¯ o subst. . . . the river Arnon, 1638 ;Ø:¬ . ¬\{ the river of Arnon Cf. ;Ø:ì. ¬\{ . , ‘from the riuer Arnon’, in the previous verse. 1611 follows its predecessors in this variation, evidently choosing not to regularise. Bod confirms that the 1611 text follows the intentions of the translators. Josh. 12:6 the Reubenites, and Gadites, and the halfe . . . Bod: the R ˆ ubenites, ˆ Gadites. e ins. and ins. . . . and the Gadites . . . , 1762 Hfij¨ Ä=x¬ l μ`j¨ and Gadites 228 Josh. 12:11 Lachis = Bod. Lachish, 1613, 1629 :il Lachish So 1611 elsewhere. Josh. 13:18 Iahazah = Bod. Jahazah (Jahaza, 1629–1963) ¬≤¬ ∂ Jahazah So 1611 at 21:36. Josh. 13:23 and villages thereof Bod: and villages pertaining thereto. of subst. and the villages thereof, 1617, 1629 ;Vî≥\¨ and villages thereof (‘pertaining’ should have been struck through.) Josh. 13:29 Manasseh, by Bod: Manasses, by. h subst. the children of Manasseh by, 1638 ¬%{uq< of the half tribe of Manasseh by Though 1638 is correct, the possibility remains that 1611 chose not to include G’s ‘the children of’. Josh. 15:33 Eshaol Bod: Easthaol. Eshtaol, 1629 (Esthaol, 1612 all, 1616) ¬Øx‰•0 Eshtaol Bod suggests that 1612 and 1616 represent the translators’ intentions here. However, at 19:41 1629’s reading is found and is also deliberate: Bod: Esthaol. Eshtaol subst. Josh. 15:38 Dileam Bod: Delean. e wo i. stroke added to n, creating m. g. Dilean, 1629 ;√mH Dilean G: ‘Dileam’. Josh. 15:42 Lebnah = Bod. Libnah, 1638 ¬n

p¬:] a company of the prophets 233 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Sam. 10:23 from the shoulders = Bod. from his shoulders, 1638 Ø.gsy from the shoulders 1 Sam. 18:1 when hee made Bod: when hee had made. ncn. when he had made, 1629 Ør¬dł when he had made 1629’s correction is normal English usage. (Bod suggests that 1611 is an error.) 1 Sam. 18:27 Dauid arose = Bod. David arose and went, 1629 ¸k*© ¬Æ‘ cä)© David arose, he and his men 1 Sam. 20:5 in the fields = Bod. in the field, 1638 ¬F“9 in the fields 1611 sometimes translates this phrase in the plural. 1 Sam. 25:16 keeping sheepe = Bod. keeping the sheep, 1629 ;4sU c»ó keeping sheep 1 Sam. 28:7 And his seruant said Bod. And his seruants sayd. And his servants said, 1629 ◊;≈ ¬u4© And his servant said Bod shows that the variation from the Hebrew is deliberate; the translators may have reasoned that, whereas Saul spoke to the servants collectively, they did not reply in chorus. 1 Sam. 31:2 Malchishua Bod: Melichis ˆ ua. a subst. h ins. Malchishua (Melchi-shua, 1769–1963) ¡:Hmr Malchishua 2 Sam. 2:9 And hee made him king Bod: and ˆ made him king. he ins. And made him king, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬hpu(© And he made him king 234 2 Sam. 3:26 Siriah Bod: Syria. ncn. Sirah, 1629 ¬ë: U Sirah 2 Sam. 4:4 feete, and was fiue yeeres olde = Bod (except italics). feet. He was five years old, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) :xk;à cªlRê ¬ŸW cħ feet, and was five years old The italics show that 1611’s reading is deliberate. 2 Sam. 5:14 Shammua Bod: S ˆ amua. h ins. line over ‘m’ to double it. Shammua (Shammuah, 1638–1963) ¡.¢ Shammua 2 Sam. 6:3, 6, 7, 8 Vzzah Bod: Oza. Uzzah subst. Uzzah x+ ¬+ Uzzah Both Hebrew and English vary. Uzza son of Abinadab is twice ¬+ (2 Sam. 6:7, 8), and six times x+ (2 Sam. 6:3, 6; 1 Chr. 13:7, 9, 10, 11); 1611 (unchanged by modern versions) gives ‘Uzzah’ in 1 Samuel and ‘Uzza’ in 1 Chronicles. I follow the translators’ preference. The only other instance of ¬+ is 1 Chr. 6:29; though a different character from the others, I follow the Hebrew and amend to ‘Uzzah’. The remaining examples are all x+Â, ‘Uzza’. One effect of retaining ‘Uzzah’ is that the parallel passage in 1 Chr. 13:7 etc. remains slightly different, as it was in 1611. (Bod reads ‘Perez’Oza’ at 2 Sam. 6:8. ncn.) 1 Chr. 6:29 Vzza Bod: Oza. Uzza subst. Uzza (Uzzah, 1817 8 o ) ¬+ Uzzah 235 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Sam. 6:12 all that pertained vnto him = Bod. pertaineth, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ج¬£3¬Er0¨ pertaineth This is the logical tense. 1611 follows B, but G indicates the correctness of the present tense: ‘and all that hee hath’. 2 Sam. 10:6, 8 Maacah Bod: Maacha. g. Both vv. Maacah ¬f≈r Maachah So transliterated elsewhere; see entry for 1 Chr. 2:48. 2 Sam. 11:1 And it came to passe, that after the yeere was expired . . . , that Dauid Bod: And it came to passe, that after the yeere was expired . . . , ˆ Dauid. that ins. And it came to pass, after the year . . . , 1762 ¬n&U r9:°p [π© that after the year The tautology of the repeated ‘that’ would justify the change (cf. 1 Kgs 20:26, where the same Hebrew is involved and ‘that’ is omitted). Bod appears to confirm that 1611 was deliberate, but there are instances where deletions are not marked. 2 Sam. 11:21 Ierubesheth Bod: Jerubes ˆ eth. h ins. Jerubbesheth, 1629 r£Ãñπ Jerubbesheth 2 Sam. 16:8 to thy mischiefe = Bod. in thy mischief, 1629 ¸r √ëŒ to thy mischief S notes that ‘the Translators give what they hold to be the general sense of the text, reserving a more literal reading for the margin’ (p. 219 n.). Margin: ‘Hebr. behold thee in thy euill’. 236 2 Sam. 16:12 that the Lord will requite good Bod: doe mee good. that the Lord will requite subst. requite me good, 1629 p ¬™¬π :ßZ¨ ¬;Ø: requite good 1629 is literal, but there have been other examples of such omissions. 2 Sam. 17:25 Abigail = Bod. Abigail (Abigal, She, 1612 all, 1616) ¬:>3 Abigail Cf. 1 Sam. 25:32, where the Hebrew is the same and the person is the same who is elsewhere spelt ¬ªP>3 G: ‘Abigal’, B: Abigail’. 2 Sam. 21:21 Shimea Bod: Simah. Shimea subst. Shimea (Shimeah, 1769–1963) ¬√uß Shimea S notes: ‘The reading of the Keri and of 1 Chr. 20:7. The correction of 1769 will not suit the form in the Chetiv ’»uß; and the Vatican LXX (2tutti). Yet “Shimeah” is correct in ch. 13:3’ (p. 219 n.). In spite of the desirability of consistency with 13:3, 1611 is retained. 2 Sam. 23:32 Elihaba Bod: Eliahba. ncn. Eliahba, 1629 xÕl∂m0 Elihaba 1 Chr. 11:33 Elihaba. = Bod. 2 Sam. 23:37 Naharai = Bod. Berothite = Bod. Naharai, 1817 8 o (Nahari, 1769–1963) Beerothite, 1629 êlm ró5ŒU Naharai Beerothite So 1611 elsewhere. 237 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Kgs 2:42 Know for a certaine, that on the day Bod: Bee sure that whensoeuer thou goest out. know for a certayne that on that on [sic] that day subst. Know for a certain, on the day, 1769 (for a certain, that on the day, 1638) Know for a certain that on the day Bod confirms ‘that on’. ‘that day’ is not changed because Bod is used as evidence only where there is variation in the printed history of the KJB. (Bod here shows normal clerical fallibility.) 1 Kgs 3:4 didSolomonoffer vp on that Altar Bod: did Solomon offer vpon that Altar. ncn. did Solomon offer upon that altar, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 (1629: the Altar); (offer on, 1612 8 o H 316; offer up on, 1817 8 o ) ¬¡ ¬wn• ¬k≈∂ x¬U \œ¿ŽU did Solomon offer up on that altar ‘Offer up’ renders the verb. 1 Kgs 3:12 according to thy word Bod: according to thy wordes. ncn. according to thy words, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸¬ ;Gš according to thy word Though not literal, 1611 makes sense. 1 Kgs 4:10 Heseb Bod: Hezeb. s subst. Hesed, 1629 ¬ô] Hesed Appears to be an uncorrected 1602 error (B originally had ‘Hesed’). 1611 margin also has ‘Heseb’. Though the possibility remains that the translators approved the mis-spelling (against the original and their other predecessors), the correction is retained. 238 1 Kgs 4:12 Iokneam Bod: Jecmeam. Jokme¯ a subst. Jokneam c√. ã∑ Jokmeam Cf. c√uã∑, 1611: ‘Iokmeam’, 1 Chr. 6:68 (= 53, Hebrew). Contrast Josh. 12:22, 19:11, 21:34, c√:ã∑, ‘Iokneam’ (Jokneam); this is a different place. Bod confirms that ‘Jokneam’ is a 1611 printer’s error. 1 Kgs 8:61 the Lord your God = Bod. the Lord our God, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) :Zn2 ¬™¬π the Lord our God Significant example. Here 1611 follows what appears to be a 1602 error; other versions, including B 1568, have ‘our’. V. 59, which has the identical Hebrew, strengthens the case that the reading here is accidental and derives from failure to correct Bod. 1 Kgs 9:11 his desire) that then Solomon gaue Bod: . . . he desired) then Solomon gaue. his desire that subst. . . . that then king Solomon gave, 1638 ¸kNU ;hª :1 ¬wn• that then Solomon gave 1 Kgs 9:11 etc. Galile Galilee ¬pfiU Icìiìcic Galilee Regularisation to 1611’s predominant form retained. 1602 has ‘Galilee’ throughout except for ‘Galile’ at Judith 1:8, with no changes noted. Most changes date from 1629. 1 Kgs 11:1 Sidonians Bod: Sidonits. ans subst. Zidonians, 1629 (Sydonians, She 1, 3) rĬ ¥ Zidonians Elsewhere, e.g. 11:5, 1611 has ‘Zidonians’. 1 Kgs 11:5 Amorites = Bod. Ammonites, 1629 (Ammorites, 1612 8 o s) cÄž¡ Ammonites So 1611 elsewhere. 239 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Kgs 11:33 Ashtaroth Bod: As ˆ taroth. h ins. Ashtoreth, 1629 r¬ $•¡ Ashtoreth So 1611, v. 5. At v. 5: Bod: As ˆ taroth. e subst. 1 Kgs 13:6 was restored againe = Bod. was restored him again, 1638 ¸kNU¬∂ :§‰© l5 was restored again 1638 is a literal correction. 1 Kgs 13:11 his sonne came Bod: his sonnes came. ncn. his sons came, 1616, 1629 :< xØ:)© his son came 1611 is literal, though context suggests plural is better. 1 Kgs 15:5 Vriiah Bod: Vrias. h subst. Uriah, 1629 ¬)¬ x Uriah 1 Kgs 15:14 Esther 3:4 Asa his heart = Bod. Mordecai his matters Bod: Mardocheus ˆ matters. o subst. *cai subst. his ins. Asa’s heart, 1762 Mordecai’s matters, 1762 Asa’s heart Mordecai’s matters See p. 144. (‘c’ is unclear in Bod.) 1 Kgs 15:19 breake the league Bod: breake the bonde. e of ‘the’ wo y. league subst. break thy league, 1629 ¸r ïŒr0 ¬ëÜW break thy league 1629’s reading appears to have been the translators’ intention. 1 Kgs 15:27 which belongeth to the Philistines Bod: which is a citie of the Philistines. belongeth to subst. which belonged to the Philistines, 1762 c#•pZj ¬£3 which belongeth to the Philistines 240 1 Kgs 15:29 the house Iereboam Bod: the house of Jereboam. ncn. the house of Jereboam, 1613 c√<ë∑ rœ the house of Jereboam Bod plus the early change suggest 1611 is accidental. 1 Kgs 16:19 to make Israel sinne Bod: and in that he made Israel to sinne. to make subst. to make Israel to sin, 1762 ¬5¬ Cªr0 xN`Um to make Israel sin 1762’s amendment appears pedantic, but Bod shows that it may represent the translators’ intentions. 1 Kgs 18:28 And they cried loud = Bod. And they cried aloud, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 ¬¬fi ¬Ø;Œ xìã © And they cried loud ‘Loud’ is closer to the sense. 1 Kgs 22:2 And it came to passe on the third yere Bod: And ˆ the thirde yeere. it came to pass on ins. . . . in the third year, 1629 rßp. U ¬n&À . . . on the third year Bod confirms that 1611 is not a misprint. 1 Kgs 22:53 according vnto = Bod. according to according unto 2 Kgs 4:35 neesed Bod: gasped. neezed subst. sneezed, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) sneezed (Bod has an insertion mark before ‘neezed’ that might be mistaken as an ‘s’.) 2 Kgs 8:19 as hee promised to giue to him Bod: as he promised to giue him. ncn. as he promised him to give him, 1629 ج¬r1 ¬£3C ¬ rr l as he promised to give to him The translators may have judged ‘him’ to be redundant, though their predecessors included it and it conforms to the Hebrew. 241 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Kgs 9:23 turned his hand = Bod. turned his hands, 1629 E∑ turned his hand Here 1611 follows its predecessors in spite of the plural Hebrew, perhaps judging this to be a more natural English phrase. 2 Kgs 9:26 sonnes, sayd the Lord = Bod. sons, saith the Lord sons, said the Lord ‘sayth the Lord’ is used later in the verse for what appears to be a continuation of the same speech, and there is no variation in the Hebrew. However, the variation in tense goes back to the Great Bible and is left unchanged. The reason is that the first statement recalls what the Lord said at 1 Kgs 21:29, but the second does not. 1611 is restored because it represents a deliberate decision by successive translators. 2 Kgs 11:10 the Temple. = Bod. the temple of the Lord, 1638 (the temple, 1817 8 o ) ¬™¬π r=Œ the temple This looks like an omission by the translators but may be deliberate. 2 Kgs 12:19, 20 Iehoash Bod: J ˆ oas. eh subst (both vv). Joash, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) :. Jehoash The Hebrew spelling has changed from the previous verse but the person appears to be the same. 1611 has changed B’s ‘Iehoas’ in all verses, following G’s spelling from v. 18, but not G’s change to ‘Ioash’ in v. 19. The choice is between fidelity to the variations of the Hebrew spelling and regularisation of the Hebrew. The translators deliberately chose the latter course, therefore their reading is restored. 242 2 Kgs 13:24 Hazael the king of Syria = Bod. Hazael king of Syria, 1629 cë3¸ks ¬5Ω¬ Hazael the king of Syria 2 Kgs 15:15 the conspiracy Bod: the treason. conspiracie subst. his conspiracy, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ج•ç¨ the conspiracy 2 Kgs 18:8 fenced cities Bod: strong cities. fenced cities subst. fenced city, 1629 ¬≤3 Abiah Several characters have this name and are given as ‘Abiah’ (1 Sam. 8:2; 1 Chr. 2:24; 6:28; 7:8). 1 Chr. 3:15, 16 Ioakim Bod: Joacim. k subst. Jehoiakim, 1629 cçŸØ¬π Jehoiakim So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 3:15 Sallum Bod: S ˆ allum. h ins. Shallum, 1629 ¬¬¢ Shallum So 1611 elsewhere. Bod shows that 1611 is an error. 248 1 Chr. 3:18 Hosama = Bod. Hoshama (Hosanna, She 3) :t§Ø¬ Hoshama Correction follows Hebrew. 1 Chr. 3:19 And the sonne of Zerubbabel Bod: ˆ The sonnes of Zorob ˆ abel. And ins. e subst. u subst. b ins. and the sons of Zerubbabel, 1629 ¬:Õñ¿;: and the son of Zerubbabel This seems a manifest error in 1611; two names follow; but Bod shows it is deliberate. S notes that ‘in ver. 21 the first “sons” is also singular in Hebrew, so that 1611 is inconsistent in this matter’ (p. 220 n.). 1 Chr. 7:35 And the sonne Bod: And the sonnes. And the sons, 1701 ;: And the son 1 Chr. 3:20 Hazubah Bod: Hasubah. z subst. Hashubah, 1629 ¬;: ` Hashubah 1 Chr. 3:21, 22 Sechaniah Bod: Sechania. h ins., h wi. Shechaniah ¬Ÿpd• Shechaniah This name is inconsistently treated in 1602, Bod, 1611 and CT, which varies at the same places as the Hebrew without reflecting the nature of the Hebrew variation. Though various people are involved, the name is regularised. 24:11 Shecaniah Bod: Secaniah. h ins. Shecaniah ¬Ÿpd•p Shechaniah 2 Chr. 31:15 Shechaniah Bod: Sechania. h ins., h wi. ¬Ÿpd• Shechaniah Ezra 8:3, 5 Shechaniah Bod: Zechania. She subst., h wi. Shechaniah ¬∑pd• Shechaniah 249 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 10:2 Shechaniah Bod: Sechania. h ins., h wi. Neh. 3:29 Shechaniah Bod: Sechania. h ins. 6:18 Shechaniah Bod: Sechania. h ins., h wi. 12:3 Shecaniah Bod: Sechania. h ins., h wi. Shechaniah 1 Chr. 3:22 Semaiah (twice) Bod: Semaia. h wi. Shemaiah, 1629 ¬∑ƒr• Shemaiah So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 4:6 Ahusam = Bod. Ahuzam, 1629 c+¬ 3 Ahuzam Ahashtari Bod: *Ahasthari. sht subst. Haahashtari, 1638 \3W Haahashtari (The marking in Bod looks like a mixture of a strikethrough and an insertion in front of and on the ‘t’.) 1 Chr. 4:7 Zoar Bod: Jezoar. Jezoar, 1638 Qere: ¬\r Kethibh: ¬k≥ª Zohar Elsewhere Qere transliterated ‘Zohar’; 1611 appears to have followed this, while 1638 has followed the Kethibh. Given the doubtfulness of this name, the traditional spelling is retained, and conformed to 1611’s normal transliteration. 250 1 Chr. 4:13 Saraia Bod: Seraia. a subst. Seraiah, 1629 (Saraiah, 1612, 1613 Q o , 1616) ¬∑ëC Seraiah So 1611 elsewhere, e.g. 1 Chr. 4:14. (Bod illustrates the inconsistencies of corrections to names.) 4:35 Seraia Bod: Saraia. e subst. Seraiah, 1638 ¬∑ëC Ezra 2:2 Saraiah Bod: Saraia. h wi. Seraiah, 1629 ¬∑ëC 1 Chr. 4:14 Charasim Bod: craftsmen. Charasim subst. Charashim, 1629 c߬ ` Charashim 1 Chr. 4:20 Simeon Bod: Sim ˆ on: e ins. Shimon, 1629 ;.ß Shimon Contrast ;:uß, Simeon, v. 24. 1 Chr. 4:29 Bilha = Bod. Bilhah, 1638 ¬Wm> Bilhah So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 4:34 Amashiah Bod: Amaua ( ˆ under ‘u’; insertion unclear) Amaziah, 1629 ¬∑≥r3 Amaziah So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 4:35 Iosibia Bod: Josibi. a wi. Josibiah, 1629 ¬∑<ß Josibiah 1 Chr. 4:36 Iesohaiah Bod: J ˆ sohaia. *e ins. h wi. Jeshohaiah (Jehohaiah, She 3) ¬∑kØ:Æ Jeshohaiah 1 Chr. 4:37 Iedaia = Bod. Jedaiah, 1638 ¬∑Eπ Jedaiah So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 5:5 Reaia Bod: Reaia. h wi. Reaia ¬∑1¬ Reaiah So 1611 elsewhere (1 Chr. 4:2; Ezra 2:47; Neh. 7:50). Bod supports the change. 251 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Chr. 5:8 Azah Bod: Azan. *z subst. Azaz, 1629 :Ω√ Azaz 1 Chr. 5:11 Salchah Bod: Salcha. h wi. Salchah (Salcah, 1629–1963) ¬fmò Salchah ‘Salchah’ for same Hebrew at Deut. 3:10 has remained unchanged since 1611. 1 Chr. 6:39 Berachiah Bod: Barachia. e subst. h wi. Berachiah ¬∑gíà Berechiah This is the same name as at 15:17; there ‘Berechiah’. Twice the name is spelt ‘Barachiah’, Zech. 1:1, 7, corrected in 1762 to ‘Berechiah’. Zech. 1:1, 7 Barachiah Bod: Barachias. h subst Berechiah, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬∑gíà ¬∑gíà Berechiah 1 Chr. 6:40 (= Hebrew v. 25) Baasiah Bod: Baas ˆ a. i ins, h wi. Baaseiah, 1638 ¬∑. ≈À Baaseiah 1 Chr. 6:40 Melchiah Bod: Melchia h wi. Malchiah ¬ÿšmr Malchiah See p. 147. A variety of figures with the same name: ‘Malchijah’ would be the Jer. 21:1 Melchiah Bod 1602: Melchias Melchiah Malchiah closest spelling. The annotations in Bod 1602 suggest that 1 Chr. 9:12; 24:9 Malchiiah Bod: Melchia. a subst., i, h ins. Malchijah Malchiah Malchijah ‘Melchiah’ (1 Chr. 6:40; Jer. 21:1) was accidental: ‘e’ is left unchanged at Neh. 3:11 and 31, but the printed text has ‘a’. The annotations also show that ‘Malchiah’ (Neh. 10:3) was deliberate. 252 Ezra 10:25 (2nd example) Malchijah Bod: Melchia. a subst., i, h ins. Malchijah Malchijah Therefore ‘Melchiah’ is changed to ‘Malchiah’ (Jer. 21:1), and ‘Malchijah’ to ‘Malchiah’ (Neh. 10:3). Neh. 3:11 Malchiiah Bod: Melchia. i, h ins. Malchijah Since 1 Chr. 9:12, Neh. 11:12 and Jer. 38:1 are the same person, 1 Chr. 9:12 is changed to ‘Malchiah’ against the evidence of the Bod annotations. Neh. 12:42 Malchiiah Bod: Melchiah. a subst., i ins. Malchijah Neh. 10:3 Malchiah Bod: Malachiiah Malchijah Malchiah Ezra 10:31 Malchiah Bod: Melchiia. a subst., h ins. Malchiah Malchiah Ezra 10:25 (1st example); Neh. 3:14, 31; 8:4 Malchiah Bod: Melchia. a subst., h ins. Malchiah Neh. 11:12 Malchiah Bod: Malchia. h ins. Malchiah Jer. 38:1 Malchiah Bod 1602: Melchia Malchiah Jer. 38:6 Malchiah Bod 1602: Melchiah Malchiah 1 Chr. 6:57 Libna = Bod. Libnah, 1638 ¬n

3 Abitub 1 Chr. 8:31 Gidor Bod: Gedor. e wo i. Gedor, 1638 ¬¬fl Gedor So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 8:36 Asmaueth Bod: Asmaueth. z subst. Azmaveth, 1638 r´t¿¡ Azmaveth So 1611 elsewhere. Bod suggests that 1611 is an error in the printing. 1 Chr. 8:37 Elasa Bod: El ˆ asa. e ins, h wi. Eleasah, 1638 ¬B√m0 Eleasah So 1611 at 2:39, 40. Same Hebrew given as ‘Elasah’ (unchanged) at Jer. 29:3, Ezra 10:22. Here, more obviously than in the previous verse, a correction has been lost. 1 Chr. 9:12 Passhur Bod: Pashur Pashur, She ¬¬•W Pashur Maasia Bod: Maasi. a wi. Maasiai, 1629 @ƒr Maasai This is what most modern versions give. 1629’s change seems still to be an error. 255 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Chr. 9:44 Ismael Bod: Is ˆ mael. h ins. Ishmael, 1638 ¬x«t•ª Ishmael So 1611 at 8:38. (The insertion is in Bod, but obscured by other work.) 1 Chr. 11:15 to the rock of Dauid Bod: to a rocke, to Dauid. the subst. of subst. to the rock to David, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬Æ¬ ¬0 ¬s U¬¡ to the rock of David Bod confirms that an apparently erroneous rendering was deliberate. 1 Chr. 11:34 Shageh Bod: S ˆ age. h ins. h wi. Shage, 1629 (Shageth, 1612 Q o s) ¬S§ Shageh 1 Chr. 11:35 Ahiham Bod: Ahiam. ncn. Ahiam c1b3 Ahiam 1 Chr. 11:45 Zimri = Bod. Shimri, 1629 ïuß Shimri So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 11:46 Elnaan = Bod. Elnaam, 1629 c¡nm0 Elnaam 1 Chr. 12:5 Eleuzai Bod: Eleusai. z subst. Eluzai, 1612 Q o s, 1629 º:m0 Eleuzai ‘e’ represents the sheva. = Hebrew v. 6. Bealiath Bod: Bealia ˆ . th ins. Bealiah, 1638 (Bealtah, 1612 Q o s) ¬∑m¡< Bealiah 1 Chr. 12:6 Azariel Bod: Azarael. i subst. Azareel, 1638 ¬5ìº≈ Azareel So 1611, Ezra 10:41, Neh. 11:13. 27:22 Azariel Bod: Azar ˆ el. i ins. Azareel, 1629 ¬5ìº≈ Azareel 256 Neh. 12:36 Asarael = Bod. Azarael, 1629 [not 1638] ¬5ìº≈ Azareel 1629 appears erroneous here. 1 Chr. 12:7 Ieroam = Bod. Jeroham, 1613, 1629 ckóπ Jeroham So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 12:10 Mashmannah Bod. Mas ˆ manah. h ins. Line over ‘n’ (doubling it). h wi. Mishmannah, 1638 ¬Rr•y Mishmannah 1 Chr. 12:11; 2 Chr. 11:20 Atthai = Bod. Attai, 1629 Attai, 1616, 1629 r ¡ Attai So 1611 at 1 Chr. 2:35, 36. 1 Chr. 12:20 Iediel = Bod. Jediael, 1638 ¬5≈HÆ Jediael So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 14:7 Elpalet Bod: Eliphalet. Elpalet subst. Eliphalet, 1629 :kÑp2 Eliphalet So 1611 usually. 1 Chr. 15:18, 20, 24; 16:5 Zachariah Bod: Zacharia. h wi. Zechariah, 1638 ¬∑ìd¿ Zechariah So 1611 usually. The two Hebrew spellings appear to be interchangeable, and the English spellings also seem to be. (2 Kgs 14:29, 15:11 and 18:2 ’¬∑îd¿;, and 15:8 ’¬∑ìd¿; are all the same person; 1611 and successors give ‘Zachariah’, while other modern versions give ‘Zechariah’. Though there is an obvious case for changing here, ‘Zachariah’ is the established name in the KJB.) 2 Chr. 34:12 Sechariah Bod: Secharia. h wi. Zechariah, 1612 8 o H316, 1629 (Shechariah, 1612 Q o s, 1616) ¬∑ìd¿ 35:8 Zachariah Bod: Zacharia. e subst. h wi. Zechariah, 1638 ¬∑ìd¿ 257 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Neh. 12:41 Zachariah Bod: Zacharie. ah subst. Zechariah, 1638 ¬∑ìd¿ 1 Chr. 15:18 Iaziel = Bod. Jaaziel, 1638 ¬5: ≈∫ Jaaziel 1 Chr. 15:18 Maasiah = Bod. Maaseiah, 1638 ¬∑. ≈r Maaseiah So 1611 at 2 Chr. 28:7; Jer. 35:4. 15:20 Bod: Maasia. h wi. 2 Chr. 23:1 Bod: Maasia. ncn. 26:11 Bod: Maasia. h wi. 34:8 = Bod. Ezra 10:18 = Bod. ¬∑. ≈r 10:21, 22, 30 Bod: Maasia. h ins (v. 21), wi (vv. 22, 30) 1 Chr. 15:18, 21 Eliphaleh Bod: Eliphale. h wi. Elipheleh, 1638 ¬oÖp2 Elipheleh Mikniah Bod: Mienia. Mikniah subst. Mikneiah, 1638 ¬∑qãy Mikneiah 258 1 Chr. 15:18 (second) Iehiel Bod: Jeiel. Jehiel subst. Jeiel, 1616, 1629 ¬5»π Jeiel S notes: ‘to distinguish ¬5»π (Jeiel) from ¬5bπ (Jehiel) of ver. 20. In this verse and 16:5 both names occur, and are thus distinguished in 1611. “Jeiel” is right in v. 21 and in 5:7; “Jehiel” in 23:8; 2 Chr. 21:2; 29:14; 31:13; 35:8; Ezra 8:9; 10:2; 21, 26. See also 2 Chr. 20:14, 29:13’ (p. 159 n.). 2 Chr. 20:14; 29:13; 35:9; Ezra 8:13; 10:43 Iehiel = Bod (all). Jeiel, 1638 1 Chr. 9:35; 11:44 Iehiel = Bod. Jehiel ¬5»π Jeiel 1 Chr. 15:21 Azzaziah Bod: Aza ˆ ia. z ins. Azaziah, 1638 ¬∑: º≈ Azaziah So 1611, 2 Chr. 31:13. 1 Chr. 27:20 Azazziah Bod: Azaria. ∗ ins. h wi. Azaziah, 1629 (‘r’ appears to be struck through in Bod; insertion is opaque.) 1 Chr. 23:11 Ziza Bod: Ziua. z ins. Zizah ¬Ω: Zizah (Bod corrects typographical error in 1602 text; B 1568: ‘Ziza’.) 1 Chr. 23:19 Iekamiam Bod: Jecmaam. ∗ Jekamiam subst. Jekameam, 1629 c√uàÆ Jekameam So 1611, 24:23. (Ending is unclear in Bod.) 1 Chr. 23:20 Michah Bod: Micha. ncn. Michah (Micah, 1629–1963) ¬fy Michah So 1611 at 24:24, 25. 1 Chr. 24:11 Ieshua Bod: Jes ˆ ua. h ins. Jeshua (Jeshuah, 1629–1963) ¡:∂ Jeshua 1 Chr. 24:20 Iedeiah Bod: Jehedia. Jedeiah subst. Jehdeiah, 1629 ¬∑⁄l∏ Jehdeiah So 1611, 27:30. 259 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Chr. 25:4 Eliatha = Bod. Eliathah, 1638 ¬r 1p2 Eliathah Cf. v. 27, ¬r ÿp2, 1611 ‘Eliathah’. Though there is a case that this should be ‘Elijathah’, it is the same character. 1 Chr. 26:16 Hosa = Bod. Hosah, 1629 ¬ör Hosah So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 26:18 init. And Parbar Bod: In Parbar. And subst. At Parbar, 1638 ¬ÕìWj And Parbar 1 Chr. 26:30 in all business = Bod. in all the business rexku ¬: m in all business 1611 reflects the Hebrew omission of the definite article (though it supplies the article in the next phrase, ‘and in the service of the king’). 1 Chr. 27:6 Amizabad = Bod. Ammizabad, 1638 ¬;ΩŽ¡ Ammizabad 1 Chr. 27:27 Sabdi the Ziphmite Bod: Sabdi the Zaphonite. Z subst. Ziphmite subst. Zabdi the Shiphmite, 1629 (Zabdi, 1612 8 o s) yÖsU ‹<º Zabdi the Shiphmite ‘Zabdi’ 1611 elsewhere. (The ‘Z’ is not obvious in Bod. Here an unclear written change is lost.) 1 Chr. 27:29 Shetrai Bod: S ˆ etrai. h ins. Shitrai, 1638 êMs Shitrai Here 1611 follows the Kethibh. 1 Chr. 27:33, 34 Ahitophel = Bod. Ahithophel, 1638 ¬Ér b3 Ahithophel So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Chr. 29:2 the siluer for things of siluer Bod: ˆ siluer, for them of siluer. that ins. things subst. and the silver for things of silver, 1629 _ôDj _ôDU¨ the silver for things of silver 260 1 Chr. 29:6 rulers ouer the Kings worke = Bod. rulers of the king’s work, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) rexku îBm ¸kþU rulers over the king’s work 1762 makes a minor change to 1611’s English. 2 Chr. 3:10 most holy place Bod: most holy ˆ . place ins. most holy house, 1629 :Fér= most holy place 2 Chr. 6:27 the land Bod: thy land. the subst. thy land, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸≥ì. the land Bod confirms that the departure from literal translation is not a printing error. See p. 41. 2 Chr. 8:16 the house of God was perfected Bod: the house of the Lord was perfect. the house of God was perfected subst. the house of the Lord was perfected ¬™¬π rœ the house of the Lord was perfected The whole verse is struck out and rewritten in Bod; ‘God’ appears to be a scribal error (‘the Lord’ is correctly used earlier in the verse). 2 Chr. 11:8 Maresha Bod: Mares ˆ a. h ins. Mareshah, 1638 ¬§ît Mareshah 2 Chr. 13:6 his Lord Bod: the Lord. his subst. his lord, 1629 nI3 his lord 2 Chr. 17:18 Iehoshabad Bod: Josabad. *ehosha subst. Jehozabad, 1629 ¬;Ω¬π Jehozabad So 1611 elsewhere. ‘J’ is erroneously struck through in Bod. 261 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Chr. 18:7, 8 Iimla Bod: Jemla. i subst. Imla, 1612 8 o s, 1638 (Jimlah, 1630) xluª Imla The same character is ¬luª, ‘Imlah’ at 1 Kgs 22:8, 9, whence, presumably, the 1630 correction. 2 Chr. 20:36 Ezion-Geber Bod: Ezion Gaber. e subst. Ezion-geber (Ezion-Gaber, Ezion-gaber 1638–1963) ¬:fi ;Ø≥¬ Ezion-geber The commonest form of the name as established in 1629 is followed. 1 Kgs 9:26 Ezion Geber Bod: Azion Gaber. e subst. Ezion-geber, 1629 [1638 = 1611] ¬: : ;Ø≥¬ 22:48 Ezion Geber Bod: Esion Gaber. z subst. e subst. Ezion-geber, 1629 ¬:fi ;Ø≥¬ 2 Chr. 8:17 Ezion Geber Bod: Ezion Gaber. e subst. Ezion-geber, 1629 ¬::;Ø≥¬ 2 Chr. 24:26 Shimeah Bod: S ˆ imeath. h ins. Shimeath, 1629 r√uß Shimeath So 1611, 2 Kgs 12:21. There: Bod: Semaa ˆ h. *h wi after S. *e wo i. e subst. t ins. 2 Chr. 25:1 Iehoadan = Bod. Jehoaddan, 1638 (Jehoiadan, 1612 8 o H316) ;‘¡Ø¬π Jehoaddan So 1611, 2 Kgs 14:2. There: Bod: Joadan. Jehoaddan subst. 2 Chr. 25:23 Ioahaz = Bod. Jehoahaz, 1629 :k1جπ Jehoahaz So 1611 elsewhere, including nearby verses. 262 2 Chr. 26:18 It perteineth not vnto thee Bod: It pertaineth not to thee. ncn. It appertaineth not unto thee, 1616, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸mxn It pertaineth not unto thee In all other places, ‘pertain’ and ‘appertain’ remain unchanged. They appear to be used indifferently (see 1 Macc. 10:39, 40, and 34, 35). 2 Chr. 28:11 wrath of God = Bod. wrath of the Lord, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬™¬π_. wrath of God 2 Chr. 28:22 this distresse Bod: his tribulation. this distresse subst. his distress, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ج ¬¥W this distress Bod shows that what appears to be a typographical error in 1611 was created by the translators. 2 Chr. 29:12 Amashai Bod: Amas ˆ ai. h ins. Amasai, 1629 @t≈ Amasai So 1611 elsewhere. Iahalelel = Bod. Jehalelel, 1638 ¬5m¬ Uπ Jehalelel 1 Chr. 4:16, ¬5m¬ U π, 1611: ‘Iehaleleel’. Since these are two different characters, the inconsistent transliteration is retained. 2 Chr. 29:23 and laide Bod: and put. laid [or ‘laide’] subst. and they laid, 1629 :uõ © and laid 1629’s correction is unnecessary. 2 Chr. 31:6 the tithes of oxen and sheepe = Bod. the tithe of oxen and sheep, 1638 ;4s™ ¬äÕ ¬@ƒr the tithes of oxen and sheep ‘Tithes’ may be deliberate, so is retained. 1638 evidently chose to use the singular at the expense of retaining the article (the English alternative would be ‘tithes of . . .’). ‘The tithe’ is repeated, which helps justify 1638. Cf. Lev. 27:32: ‘the tithe of the herde, or of the flocke’. 263 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Chr. 31:14 Immah Bod: Imma. h wi. Imnah, 1629 (Immath, 1612 8 o H316) ¬nuª Imnah This name is variously rendered by 1611, ‘Iimnah’ (Gen. 46:17), ‘Iimna’ (Num. 26:44; see above) – these are the same person – and ‘Imnah’ (1 Chr. 7:30); not to be confused with :nuª, ‘Imna’ (1 Chr. 7:35). 2 Chr. 32:5 prepared Millo Bod: ˆ repaired. p ins. repaired Millo, 1616 x¬PUr0 ;: \π© prepared Millo The nearest parallel seems to be ¬æ« ¬∑¬¡ ;: \π©, ‘and next to him repaired Ezer’ (Neh. 3:19), and the neighbouring verses. This verb is never elsewhere given as ‘prepared’. ‘Prepared’ makes some sense and Bod confirms that it is deliberate. See p. 40. 2 Chr. 32:20 For this cause Bod: But. ncn. And for this cause, 1638 For this cause Sentence begins with (syntax changed). 2 Chr. 33:19 all his sinne Bod: all his sinnes. all his sin, 1817 8 o (all his sins, 1762–1963) Ørx: \¬f all his sin 2 Chr. 34:10 and mend = Bod. and amend, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) ;: \m and mend 1769’s amendment of language is unnecessary. 2 Chr. 35:9 Ioshabad Bod: Jos ˆ abad. h ins. Jozabad, 1629 ¬;Ω Jozabad So elsewhere except 2 Kgs 12:21, ‘Iehozabad’ (this may be an error or may deliberately conform to 2 Chr. 24:26), and 1 Chr. 12:4, ‘Iosabad’. The latter is probably a spelling error and so corrected here. 1 Chr. 12:4 Iosabad = Bod. Josabad ¬;Ω Jozabad 264 Ezra 2:2 Mispar = Bod. Mispar (Mizpar, 1744, 1817 F o , 1837, 1873, Mizpah, 1817 8 o ) ¬Yõy Mispar Ezra 2:22 The children of Netophah Bod: The men of Netopha. h wi. The men of Netophah, 1638 ¬Ñ:p ¶p. The men of Netophah ‘children’ appears to be a printer’s error, induced by a long succession of ‘children’s. See p. 60. Ezra 2:40 Hodauia = Bod. Hodaviah, 1629 ¬Ÿ¨D¬ Hodaviah So 1611 elsewhere. Ezra 2:50 Nephushim Bod: Nephus ˆ im. h ins. Nephusim, 1629 cùep Nephusim Ezra 3:5 that willingly offred, offered a free will offering Bod: which they did of their owne free will offer. that willingly offered a free will offering subst. that willingly offered a free will offering, She, 1613 F o , 1616, 1629 ¬;Ep :¤mr y ¬: m that willingly offered a free-will offering She reading from Wright. Bod increases the likelihood that 1611 is erroneous. Ezra 4:9 the Apharsaphkites Bod: of Apharsaph. the *Apharsaphkites subst. the Apharsathchites, 1612 all, 1616, 1629 x∫f°ò “ ¬Ç3 the Apharsathchites 265 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Ezra 4:10 Asnappar Bod: Asnapper. ncn. Asnappar (Asnapper, 1617, 1629 H425, 1630, 1762–1963 [not Cambridge 1629, 1638]) ¬W{õ1 Asnappar Ezra 4:24 the house of the God, which Bod: the house of God at. ncn. the house of God which, 1616, 1629 xWl2rœ rD>≈ ‹ the house of the God which S notes: ‘this seems to be an attempt on the part of the Translators (afterwards given over, as in ch. 7:18) to represent, whensoever it might be possible, the status emphaticus of the Chaldee’ (p. 222 n.). Ezra 7:4 Zeraiah Bod: Zeraia. h wi. Zerahiah, 1638 ¬∑l ¬¿ Zerahiah So 1611 elsewhere. Ezra 7:18 the siluer and gold = Bod. the silver and the gold, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬;X ¬¨ xYõC the silver and gold Ezra 8:16 also for Iarib Bod: ˆ Jarib. and for ins. also for Joiarib, 1638 : ¬∑m also for Joiarib So 1611 elsewhere. Bod suggests the translators intended to repeat ‘and for Iarib’ from earlier in the verse. Ezra 8:21 there, at the riuer Ahaua Bod: the water beside Ahaua. there at the riuer Ahaua subst. the river of Ahava, 1762 x™X. ¬kR\ . . . the river Ahava Contrast the construct form at v. 31. 266 Ezra 10:23 Kelitah Bod: Selitah. K subst. Kelita, 1638 xLpã Kelita So 1611 elsewhere. Ezra 10:25 Iesiah Bod: Jesia. h wi. Jeziah, 1638 ¬ÿ-ª Jezziah Unique occurrence. Ezra 10:33 Mattatha Bod: Mathatha. Mattathah, 1638 ¬‰fr Mattathah Corrections to Bod oddly done. There is a strikethrough line between first ‘a’ and ‘t’; ‘t’ is written above first ‘h’. Ezra 10:35 Bedaiah Bod: Badaia. e subst. h wi. Bedeiah, 1762 ¬∑ “ ¬= Bedeiah Ezra 10:38 Bennui = Bod. Binnui, 1612 Q o s, 1638 (Benui, 1612 8 o H316) :> Binnui So 1611 elsewhere. Neh. 1:11 O Lord Bod: O Lord. ncn. O Lord, 1835 nI3 x1 O Lord So 1611, Dan. 9:14. (Typographical distinctions, including italics, are not indicated in Bod.) Neh. 2:12 what God had put Bod: what God had giuen mee. put subst. what my God had put, 1638 ;r Å Un2 ¬t what God had put Neh. 3:4 Merimoth Bod: Meremoth. No visible substitution. Meremoth, 1638 rØ. ¬u Meremoth So 1611, Ezra 8:33, 10:36. 3:21 10:5 12:3 = Bod. Bod: Meremoth. i subst. = Bod. rw ¬u 267 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Neh. 3:4 Vriah Urijah ¬)ïx Urijah 1611 has ‘Urijah’ for the same person at v. 21. Elsewhere it sometimes uses ‘Uriah’, sometimes ‘Urijah’. See note to 1 Kgs 15:5. Neh. 3:5; 8:10 (first) Lord Bod: Lord. ncn. Lord, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611; 1817 F o = 1611 at 8:10) cVqI3 :qI3j Lord Neh. 3:6 Besodaiah Bod: Besodia. Besodaiah subst. Besodeiah, 1638 ¬∑ “ ¬Ø:Œ Besodeiah Neh. 3:12 Halloesh Bod: Hallohes. h wi. Halohesh, 1638 (Haloesh, 1616, Hallohesh, 1873) :a¬U Hallohesh So 1611 at 10:24. Neh. 3:15 Shallum Bod: S ˆ allum. h ins. Shallun, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ;¬¢ Shallun Neh. 6:10 Mehetabel Bod: Mehetabeel. ncn. Mehetabeel (Mehetable, She) ¬5: with goodness 1611 appears to be an error but may be deliberate. Jer. 31:15 Rahel Rahel ¬aë Rachel The translators, possibly influenced by G, have reverted to an older spelling, though the Hebrew gives no warrant for a change from their normal practice. Jer. 31:18 thou art the Lord 1602: for thou art my Lord God. for thou art the Lord, 1629 ¬™¬π ¬‰. š thou art the LORD 7 S gives 1629 but I have not found this reading there. 285 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Jer. 35:13 tel the men of Iudah and inhabitants of Ierusalem 1602: tell the men of Juda, and the inhabitants of Hierusalem. tell the men of Judah and the inhabitants of Jerusalem, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 ¬E¬π :6m ‰ìr1¨ cl§¬π =•Øm tell the men of Judah and inhabitants of Jerusalem There is no article in front of either noun, though the parallelism and sense are better for 1616’s change. Jer. 36:26 Abdiel 1602: Abdeel Abdeel ¬5¬ <¡ Abdeel Cf. 1 Chr. 5:15, ¬5‹<¡, a different person, given as ‘Abdiel’. Jer. 38:16 the king = 1602. Zedekiah the king, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬ÿçGμ ¸kNU the king Here the translators follow their English predecessors and the LXX. Jer. 39:5 Nebuchad-nezzar 1602: Nabuchodonosor Nebuchadnezzar ¬s xíGd:p Nebuchadrezzar 1611 gives ‘Nebuchad-rezzar’ at vv. 1 and 11. Earlier versions including B have, properly, the same name throughout these verses. Against its predecessors, 1611 has chosen to follow the Hebrew literally; v. 5 appears to be an error: either a manuscript correction was omitted, or the printer failed to notice it. Jer. 40:1 The word which 1602: This is the worde that Ramath = 1602. The word that, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) Ramah, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬t ¬ The word which Ramah 286 Jer. 40:5 ouer all the cities of Iudah 1602: ouer the cities of Juda. over the cities . . . , 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬E¬π ¬ √Œ over all the cities . . . Another instance where 1611 may be deliberately non-literal. Jer. 41:1 Elishamah 1602: Elisama. Elishama, 1638 :t§p2 Elishama Jer. 42:16 after you in Egypt 1602: you into Egypt. after you there in Egypt, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ceîX. ;À¬ ª c§ cª¬ ≥y after you in Egypt Jer. 48:34 Elealeh 1602: Eleale. Elealeh (Elealeth, She) ¬o√m0 Elealeh Jer. 48:36 because the riches that hee hath gotten is perished 1602: for their riches which they haue gathered, shalbe destroyed. . . . are perished, 1701 ¬;1 are perished Grammatical change. Jer. 49:1 God 1602: Gad. Gad, 1616, 1629 ¬fi Gad Sleepy printer? Jer. 50:29 according to all that shee hath done vnto her 1602: according as shee hath done, so deale with her againe. according to all that she hath done, do unto her, She, 1613 F o , Q o ¬†C√ ¬£3 ¬: F ¬l.≈ according to all that she hath done, do unto her 287 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Jer. 51:12 the watchman 1602: your watchmen. the watchmen, 1629 cïu® the watchmen 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. Jer. 51:27 cause her horses to come vp 1602: bring as great a sort of terrible horses against her. . . . the horses . . . , 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ::¬≈U her horses Since neither an article nor a possessive is in the Hebrew, 1611’s interpretation of the sense is restored. Jer. 51:30 their dwelling places = 1602. her dwellingplaces, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) Wr : ł•y their dwelling-places Jer. 52:31 Iehoiakin 1602: Jehoacim. Iehoiakin 8 1602: Jehoacim. Jehoiachin, 1629 (Jehoiakim, 1617) Jehoiachin, 1629 (Jehoiakim, 1617) ;iŸØ¬π ;iŸ¬π Jehoiachin Jehoiachin So 1611 elsewhere. Ezek. 1:2 Iehoiakins Bod: Joacims. kins subst. Jehoiachin’s, 1638 (Jehoiakims, She [some], 1617) ;i∑ Jehoiachin’s 8 S gives ‘Jehoiakim’ for both, and notes ‘Jehoiakin’ from 1616. 288 Lam. 2:18 the apple of thine eyes 1602: the apple of thine eye. the apple of thine eye ¸q«rÀ the apple of thy eye 1611 follows the singular of the Hebrew elsewhere, e.g. Prov. 7:2. Lam 4:15 They cryed vnto them; Depart ye, it is vncleane, depart, depart, touch not, when they fled away and wandred: they said They cried unto them, Depart ye; it is unclean; depart, depart, touch not: when they fled away and wandered, they said xìä xxL ¬: ¬: ¬: .l sn H :fi#¬. ¬u1 :nc› They cried unto them, ‘Depart ye, it is unclean, depart, depart, touch not’, when they fled away and wandered: they said The placing of the colon constitutes a variant. The 1611 punctuation is a possible reading, so restored. Ezek. 1:17 returned Bod: ˆ turned. re ins. turned, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) :: ª returned 1769 is rejected by Bod. Ezek. 3:11 thy people Bod: the children of thy people. the children of thy people, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸N¡ qŒ thy people Bod shows 1611 rejected the literal translation. See p. 91. Ezek. 5:1 take the ballances 1602: take thee weight scales. take thee balances, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) q¿xw ¸m ‰làl take thee balances Presumably a printer’s error. Ezek. 6:8 that he may haue 1602: that you may haue. that ye may have, 1613, 1629 cel rج – that ye may have 1611 appears to be a typographical error. Ezek. 11:24 in vision 1602: in a vision. in a vision, 1769 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬0ìMÀ in a vision 1611 appears to be an error. Ezek. 12:19 of them that dwell 1602: vpon them that dwell. of all them that dwell, 1629 c>•¬ ¬Ł of them that dwell 289 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Ezek. 14:18 sonnes nor daughter 1602: sonnes nor daughters. sons nor daughters, She, 1613 F o , Q o r:; cÄÕ sons nor daughters Ezek. 18:1 And the word 1602: The word. The word, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬9¬ [π© And the word 1638 looks like an error. Ezek. 22:10 fathers nakednesse 1602: fathers shame. fathers’ nakedness, 1769 (1873: father’s) :1r©ì¬ fathers’ nakedness Though the Hebrew is singular, the plural sense is appropriate, as given in most modern translations; S here is pedantic. Ezek. 23:23 Shoah 1602: wealthy (m: Shoah). all the the Assyrians [sic] = 1602 (al the Atsyrians). Shoa, 1629 and all the Assyrians, 1616, 1629 ¡Ø: ¬.. qŒ¬Ł Shoa all the Assyrians The conjunction is sensible but not essential. (1602’s ‘Atsyrians’ is probably a printer’s error.) Ezek. 24:5 let him seethe 1602: let it boyle well. let them seethe, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬•Õ let them seethe 1611 is wrong by the Hebrew and the context, so I take it as a printer’s error. Ezek. 24:7 she powred it = 1602 [see note]. she poured it not, 1613, 1629 ¬r dÑ• xn she poured it not 1611’s error appears to come from an incorrect revision of 1602 or from an incorrect reading of the revision. 1602: ‘vpon a high drie stone hath she powred it, and not vpon the ground’. Cf. Ecclus. 35:15. 290 Ezek. 26:14 they shall bee a place 1602: thou shalt be for a spreading of nets. thou shalt be a place, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬∏¬ # thou shalt be a place Ezek. 27:22, 23 Shebah 1602: Seba. Sheba, 1638 x;• Sheba So 1611 elsewhere. Ezek. 30:17 and of Phibeseth 1602: and of Phibesech. and of Pibeseth, 1762 rô:á and of Phibeseth The ‘Ph’, e, is caused by preceding what would probably have been ‘P’, e. G has ‘Phibeseth’, and 1611 has ‘Phibesheth’ twice in the front matter. The ‘Ph’ beginning survived considerable scrutiny. Ezek. 32:22 Ashur 1602: Assur. Asshur, 1629, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬.. Asshur So 1611 elsewhere. Ezek. 32:25 with all her multitudes 1602: with al his multitude. with all her multitude, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬nØ.X¬fŒ with all her multitudes The similar v. 20 is plural in Hebrew. Only at Matt. 8:18 is a singular rendered ‘multitudes’. The correction is early and justified, but the plural may be deliberate. Ezek. 34:28 the beasts of the land = 1602. the beast of the land, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ,í1W r\ the beasts of the land Three other times (1 Sam. 17:46, Job 5:22 and Ezek. 29:5) 1611 uses a plural for this phrase; they remain unchanged. ‘Beasts’ is appropriate to the context and justifiable by the translators’ practice. Ezek. 34:31 And yee my flocke of my pasture 1602: And ye my sheep, the sheepe of my pasture. And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ;xr Äxr ;h.¨ r »ìr And ye my flock, the flock of my pasture 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. 291 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Ezek. 36:2 Because the enemy had said 1602: Because your enemie hath sayd. Because the enemy hath said, 1630 [not 1638] (1817 8 o = 1611) :∫ØxW ¬r1 ;¡∂ Because the enemy hath said 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. Cf. Zech. 4:2. Ezek. 36:15 the nations 1602: thy folke. thy nations, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸ª∂Ø: the nations Ezek. 39:11 at that day 1602: At the same time. in that day, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) x¬U c9 at that day The phrase survives 11 times in current KJBs, including two instances where there is the same extended phrase, Jer. 4:9 and Hos. 1:5. 1638’s change cannot be justified. Ezek. 42:17 with a measuring reede 1602: with the measuring cane. with the measuring reed, 1638 ¬‘PU ¬qãÀ with the measuring-reed See adjacent verses. This looks like carelessness in relation to B and G, which both keep the definite article. Ezek. 43:27 the eight day = 1602. the eighth day, 1629 the eighth day Ezek. 44:22 a widow, or her 1602: no widow, neither. a widow, nor her, 1769 a widow, or her 1769 is a grammatical correction that is probably not essential. 292 Ezek. 44:23 and cause men to discerne betweene the vncleane and the cleane 1602: and cause them to discerne betwixt the cleane and vncleane. and cause them . . . , 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬¬ Lm xxL;= c¬ and cause men . . . KJB paraphrases. ‘Them’ may be better than ‘men’, but ‘men’ is possible, and likely to be deliberate. Ezek. 44:30 the priests = 1602 (the Priests) the priest’s, 1762 (the priests’, 1873) cÄXIj the priests’ ‘Priest’ in the next phrase is correctly singular. Ezek. 46:23 And there was a new building [1602 different.] And there was a row of building, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬:¨ And there was a row of building The basis for 1611’s reading is unclear. ¬: is translated ‘row’ elsewhere. I suspect a manuscript change was misread by the printer. Ezek. 48:2 vnto the west = 1602. unto the west side ¬OŸ r.Z¬¡ unto the west The translators appear to have judged the repetition of ‘side’ to be unnecessary. Though this is inconsistent with the inclusion of ‘side’ in the following verses, the reading is good if unliteral English. Ezek. 48:8 they shall offer = 1602. ye shall offer, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) .ï‰ they shall offer Though this seems to be an error, it is retained because the translators apparently chose to retain it from 1602 and G against, e.g., Great Bible (‘ye shall set asyde’). 293 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Dan. 1:12 let them giue pulse Bod: let vs haue pulse. them giue subst. . . . give us pulse, 1629 c»ó: U;y :l:r ª . . . give us pulse 1611’s omission looks accidental, deriving from an imperfect correction of Bod. Dan 2:41 potters = Bod. potters’, 1769 (potter’s, 1817 8 o , 1873) ¬kÉ potter’s Dan. 3:15 a fierie furnace Bod: a hote fierie furnace. a burning fiery furnace, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) x‰GçŸ xë: ;r. a fiery furnace 1638 follows the Aramaic, but Bod suggests that the translators decided a second adjective was unnecessary. Dan. 3:18 thy golden image Bod: the golden image. y subst. the golden image, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) x;X¬ ck±m thy golden image Bod shows 1611 rejected the literal translation, presumably to keep a parallel with ‘thy gods’ immediately preceding (there the Aramaic does have the possessive). Dan. 6:13 the captiuity of the children 1602: the children of the captiuitie. the children of the captivity, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) x†¬P qŒ;y the children of the captivity Error corrected. Dan. 12:8 my Lord = 1602. my Lord (my lord, 1744 [not 1762, 1769], 1873) ÄI3 my lord S notes that ‘my Lord’ is also found in 10:16, 17, 19, and Zech. 4:4, 5, 13, 6:4 (this last in 1611, ‘my Lord’); all ‘my lord’ in CT (p. 173). 294 Dan. 12:13 in the lot 1602: in thy lot. in thy lot, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸më: m in the lot Hos. 4:4 this people Bod: the people. is subst. thy people, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸. ¡¨ this people Hos. 6:5 shewed them by Bod: cut down ˆ . shewed subst. them by ins. hewed . . . , She, 1612 Q o Syn 6.61.32, 8 o H316, 1613, 1629 [shewed . . . , 1616, 1817 8 o ] #<∞k shown . . . Translators’ deliberate reading restored. See p. 38. Hos. 13:3 as the early dew it passeth away Bod: as the ˆ deaw that early passeth away. early ins. it subst. is driuen with a whirlewinde Bod: the whirlewind. is driuen with a subst. as the early dew that passeth away, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) . . . the whirlwind, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸o¬ cš•r ¬: d¨ ¬«: π as the early dew it passeth away . . . a whirlwind Awkward, but ‘it’ is clear in Bod. Joel 1:16 your eyes = Bod. our eyes, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) :q« your eyes The translators appear to have accepted Bod’s reading. 295 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Joel 3:13 the wickedness Bod: their wickedness. their wickedness, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) c†√ë the wickedness = Hebrew 4:13. Bod confirms that the translators rejected the 1629 reading. Amos 1:1 two yere Bod: two yeres. two years, 1616, 1630 [not 1629, 1638] two years Amos 1:11 and kept Bod: he kept. and kept subst. and he kept, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬ët• and kept 1762 may prevent an ambiguity, but ‘and kept’ is what the translators wrote; it survived review and 150 years of editors. Amos 2:2 Kerioth Bod: Carioth. Kerioth subst. Kerioth (Kirioth, 1629–1963) rï; Kerioth Amos 8:3 the songs of the Temples Bod: the songs of the temple. s wi. the songs of the temple, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬fZ rØ¬ß the songs of the temples Bod shows that the translators deliberately ignored the Hebrew singular. Amos 9:5 all that dwelleth Bod: all that dwell. ncn. all that dwell, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) =•Ø¬Ł all that dwell Micah 5:2 Beth-leem Bod: Bethlehem. (Unreadable insertion or substitution.) Beth-lehem, 1629 c]krœ Beth-lehem 296 Micah 7:7 vnto you the Lord Bod: vnto the Lord. ncn. unto the Lord, She, 1613 F o , Q o (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬™¬À unto the Lord In the light of the Hebrew, Bod, and the early change, 1611 looks like an accident. Nahum 1:4 floure Bod: spring. *floure subst. flower, 1629 ¬ ¬É flower Nahum 3:17 The crowned Bod: Thy princes. The crowned subst. Thy crowned, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¸ª ¬ΩSy The crowned Hab. 3:1 vpon Sigionoth Bod: for the ignorances. vpp¯ o Sigionoth subst. upon Shigionoth, 1762 r: Rß upon Shigionoth Hab. 3:19 Lord God Bod: Lorde God. ncn. Lord God, 1630, 1762, 1769, moderns (Lord God, 1629, 1638, 1701, 1744, 1817 8 o ) nI3 ¬Æ¬π Lord God Usually rendered ‘The Lord’. S notes that this is the only occurrence of this rendering, and that 1629 ‘perhaps wrongly’ corrects (p. 147 n.). Since 1611’s reading is defensible, it is retained. Haggai 1:1, 12, 14, 2:2, 4 Iosuah Bod: Josua. (Struck through at 1:1, substitution illegible.) h wi (remaining vv). Joshua, 1629 ¡: جπ Joshua 1611 margin, to ‘Ieshua the sonne of Iozadak’, Ezra 3:2: ‘Or, Iosua. Hagge 1. 1.’ Hebrew here is ¡:∫. ¡: ¬π elsewhere is spelt ‘Joshua’. 297 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Zech. 4:2 which were vpon the top thereof Bod: (verse ends at) seuen pipes, ˆ . w ch were vpp¯ o the top thereof. which are upon the top thereof, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬§4¬¬¡ ¬£3 which are upon the top thereof ‘Are’ is clearly appropriate. Cf. Ezek. 36:2, where an inappropriate tense for direct speech is changed. Zech. 7:7 of the plaine Bod: and in the plaine countreys. of subst. and the plain, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬lÜ.“ U¨ of the plain Though this looks like a printer’s error, Bod shows it is deliberate. Zech. 11:2 because all the mighty are spoiled Bod: yea, all the proude are wasted away. because all the mightie are spoiled. because the mighty are spoiled, 1638 (because the mighty is spoiled, 1769; 1817 8 o = 1611) ¬¬… : c ¬ ¬. ¬£3 because all the mighty are spoiled Here 1611 has revised in the light of G’s ‘because all the mightie are destroyed’, and has added a note to ‘mighty’: ‘Or, gallants’. Clearly they gave the wording close attention here, and seem to have judged that ‘all’ was part of the sense. Zech. 14:10 Hananiel Bod: Hananeel. i wo first e. Hananeel, 1701 (1817 8 o = 1611) ¬5pm` Hananeel So 1611 elsewhere. Mal. 1:8 And if hee offer Bod: When ye bring. And if subst. offer subst. And if ye offer, She, 1613 F o , Q o ;:·üi¨ And if ye offer 298 Mal. 2:2 and will curse = Bod. and I will curse, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) r ج1¨ and will curse The personal pronoun is unnecessary. Mal. 3:4 the offerings of = Bod (offrings). the offering of, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) r\py the offerings of Mal. 4:2 and shall goe foorth Bod: and ye shall goe foorth. and ye shall go forth, 1617, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) cr x≤Æ and shall go forth 1617 prevents ambiguity, but Bod shows that the translators rejected this reading. 1 Esdras 1:6, 11; 2 Esdras 1:13 Moyses 1602: Moses. Moses, 1629 : c Mcuo n (Vulg.: Moysi) Moses Ecclus. 45:15 Moises Moses, 1613, 1629 Mcuon, 2 Macc. 1:29, 2:4, 8, 10; 7:6. Etc. 1602: Moses. Moses, 1629 Mcuon, 1 Esdras 1:8 Sielus = 1602. Syelus, 1638 Hounìc, Syelus 1611 marg.: ‘Or, Iehiel’ 1 Esdras 1:9 Iechonias = 1602 (Jechonias). Jeconias, 1629 ltycvic, Jechonias 1 Esdras 1:25 Pharao the king of Egypt = 1602. Pharaoh . . . , 1629 µcoiìtu, Ai,út:cu (Vulg.: Pharao) Pharaoh 1611 gives ‘Pharaoh’ at Ecclus. 16:15, where there is no equivalent in the LXX or Vulgate. 2 Esdras 1:10 Pharao = 1602. Pharaoh, 1629 Pharaonem Pharaoh 299 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Macc. 4:9 Pharao = 1602. Pharaoh, 1629 1cpcc Pharaoh So 1611 at v. 21. Acts 7:10, 13 Pharao = 1602. Pharaoh, 1629 1cpcc Pharaoh 1 Esdras 1:28 etc. Ieremie = 1602 (Jeremie). Jeremy, 1701 (1699 in NT) Jeremy 1 Esdras 1:31 fathers = 1602. father’s, 1762, 1769 tc:pis c father’s 1 Esdras 1:33 1 Esdras 5:5, 66 Iudah Iuda Judah Judah, 1629 lcuoc lcuoc Juda Juda 1602: ‘Juda’ throughout. 1 Esdras 9:5 Ecclus. 49:4 Heb. 8:8 Iuda Iuda Iudah Iudah Judah, 1612 8 o s, 1629 Judah, 1769 Juda, 1638 Judah lcuoc lcuoc lcuoc lcúoc Juda Juda Juda Juda = v. 63, LXX. These changes render the text consistent in giving ‘Juda’ in Apoc. and NT. They remove some inconsistent changes. 1611 uses ‘Iuda’ in prefatory and marginal material. 1 Esdras 1:55 they burnt it, brake downe the walles of Ierusalem, set fire vpon her towres = 1602. and brake down . . . and set fire, 1769 (and brake down, 1762) sci tìuocv :c :tiyc ltpcocìúucv sci :cu, túp,cu, co:cv tvttúpiocv tv tupi they burnt it, broke down the walls of Jerusalem, set fire upon her towers = v. 52, LXX. 300 1 Esdras 2:8 tribes of Beniamin 1602: the tribes and villages of Juda and Beniamin. tribe of Benjamin, 1769 Btvicuiv guìn, (Vulg.: tribus Beniamin) tribes of Benjamin = v. 5, LXX. 1 Esdras 2:9 with very free gifts 1602: with many free gifts. with very many free gifts, 1629 sci toycï, c, tìtio:ci, with very many free gifts 1611 probably a printer’s error. 1 Esdras 2:17, 24, 27; 4:48; 6:29; 7:1; 8:67; 1 Macc. 10:69; 2 Macc. 3:5, 8; 4:4; 8:8 Coelosyria Celosyria Kciìn 2upic Coelosyria 1611 spelling restored as being closer to the Greek. 1 Esdras 3:11 The King is strongest 1602: The king is strong. The king is strongest (the king is the strongest, 1629–1762, 1837) Yttpioyúti c µcoiìtú, The king is strongest 1 Esdras 4:21 He stickes 1602: he ieopardeth. He sticketh, 1769 He sticks This is one of five instances of the modern ending (the others are Ecclus. 22:2, 44:12, Baruch 6:9 and 21), reasonably but unnecessarily corrected for consistency. The older translations work differently. See p. 110. 1 Esdras 4:43 when thou camest to the kingdome = 1602. . . . to thy kingdom, 1629 n :c µcoiìticv ocu tcptìcµt, . . . to the kingdom 301 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Esdras 5:5 Ioachim = 1602 (Joachim). Joacim, 1629 lccsiu Joacim 1 Esdras 5:8 Reesaias 1602: Resaias. Reesaias (Resaias, 1873) Pnocicu Resaias 1 Esdras 5:14 Adonican 1602: Adonicam. Adonikam, 1762 (Adonicam, 1629) Aocviscu Adonikam 8:39 Adonicam = 1602 (v. 40). Adonikam, 1762 (Adonicam, 1629) Aocviscu Adonikam 1 Esdras 5:19 Pyra 1602: Pirath. Pira, 1629 Pira 1 Esdras 5:20 Cyrama = 1602. Cirama, 1629 Kipcuc, (Aldus: Kipcuc) Cirama 1 Esdras 5:26 Banuas 1602: Banua. Banuas (Bannas, She) Bcvvcu Banuas 1 Esdras 5:31 Asipha 1602: Acupha. Acipha, 1629 Ayiµc (Aldus: ósigó) Acipha 1 Esdras 5:32 Chareus 1602: Charesca. Charcus, 1629 Bcpycu, (Aldus: ycpscú,) Charcus 1 Esdras 5:33 Ioeli 1602: Gedah. Jeeli, 1629 ltnìi (Aldus: itnìi) Jeeli 1 Esdras 5:34 Sabie 1602: Sabin. Sabi, 1701 H868 (Saby, 1629) ocµin Sabie 302 1 Esdras 5:37 the sonnes of Ban 1602: the sonnes of Thubia. the son of Ban, 1629 :c0 uíc0 Tcuµcv the sons of Ban 1 Esdras 5:55 Sidon = 1602. Sidon (Zidon, 1769, 1817 F o , 1837) 2iocvici, Sidon = v. 53, LXX. 1 Esdras 5:69 Asbazareth = 1602. Azbazareth, 1629 Aoµcocptû Asbazareth = v. 66, LXX. 1 Esdras 8:2 Ozias Memeroth 1602: Menuerath. Ezias Memeroth (Meremoth, 1762, 1837) Oçicu Ozias Memeroth 1611 spelling restoredas being closer tothe Greek. The Greek is doubtful (1611 margin), and this makes 1762 as doubtful as 1611. The translation is an adoption of G’s reading and margin against B, and must therefore be taken as the product of reflection, not as an accident. Eleasar 1602: Eleazar. Eleazar, 1629 Lìtcçcp Eleazar So 1611, vv. 43, 63. 1 Esdras 8:6 of king Artaxerxes = 1602. of Artaxerxes, 1629 Ap:c¸tp¸cu of Artaxerxes 1 Esdras 8:44 Ioribas 1602: Joribon (v. 45). Mosollamon = 1602. Joribus, 1873 Mosollamon (Mosollamus, 1873) lcpiµcv Mtocìcucv Joribus Mosollamon S corrects to the Vulgate reading; the reason for 1611’s spelling is not apparent, unless it is an error. G and B both have ‘Joribon’ and ‘Mosollamon’; G notes, ‘Or, Iorib . . . & Mosollam’. 1611 has followed its predecessors for ‘Mosollamon’, as it also does for ‘Mcocììcuc,’, 9:14, which is given as ‘Mosollam’. 303 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Esdras 8:49 the catalogue of whose names were shewed 1602: whose names are all signed vp in writing. the catalogue of whose names were shewed (the catalogue of whose names was shewed, 1873) the catalogue of whose names was shown Grammatical correction. 1 Esdras 8:69 Judith 5:16 Judith 5:3 Judith 5:9, 10 Baruch 3:22 Susanna 56 Chanaanites Chanaanite Canaan Chanaan Chanaan Chanaan Canaanites, 1629 Chanaanite (Canaanite, 1629 only) Chanaan, 1638 Chanaan (Canaan, 1629 only) Chanaan (Canaan, 1873) Chanaan (Canaan, 1629, Ostervald 1808 only) Xcvcvcicv Xcvcvcïcv Xcvccv Xcvccv Xcvccv Xcvccv Canaanites Canaanite Canaan Canaan Canaan Canaan = v. 66. 1602: ‘Chanaan . . .’. 1629 regularises to the form found at vv. 9, 10. At 1 Macc. 9:37 Logos gives ‘Chanaan’ for 1611’s ‘Canaan’. ‘Canaan’ or ‘Canaanite’ is also found in Apoc. or NT at 2 Esdras 1:21, Matt. 10:4, 15:22, Mark 3:18. 1 Macc. 9:37 Acts 7:11, 13:19 Canaan Chanaan Canaan (Chanaan, 1638) Chanaan (Canaan, 1873; 13:19, 1612 8 o s) Xcvccv Xcvócv Canaan Canaan 304 1 Esdras 9:21 Hierel 1602: Hiereel. Hiereel, 1629 linì Hiereel S gives LXX as ítptnì (p. 177). 1 Esdras 9:22 Ellionas 1602: Elionas. Elionas, 1629 Lìicvci, (Aldus: tììicvc,) Elionas 1 Esdras 9:23 Iosabad 1602: Jorabadus. Jozabad, 1629 lcçcµoc, Jozabad Contrast Zcµoc,, ‘Iosabad’, v. 29. 1 Esdras 9:30 Many 1602: Mani. Mani, 1629 Mcvi Mani 1 Esdras 9:31 Balunus 1602: Balnuus. Balnuus, 1629 (Belnuas, 1762) Bcìvcuc, Balnuus 1611 looks like a typographical error. 1 Esdras 9:32 Milchias 1602: Melchias. Melchias, 1629 Mtìyic, Melchias So 1611 at v. 44. 1 Esdras 9:34 Selenias 1602: Selemias. Selemias, 1629 2tìtuic, Selemias Azailus 1602: Ezailus. Azaelus, 1629 Açcnìc, Azaelus Iosiphus = 1602 (Josiphus). Josephus, 1769 lcontc, Josephus 1 Esdras 9:48 Sabateus 1602: Battaias. Sabateas, 1769 (Sabbateas, 1629–1762; Sabatteas 1701) 2cµµc:cic, Sabateus 2 Esdras 1:31 newe Moone 1602: new moones. new moons, 1629 neomenias new moon 2 Esdras 1:40 Zacharie = 1602. Zachary, 1701 Zacchariae Zachary 305 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Malachie = 1602. Malachy, 1616, 1701 H868, 1762 Malachiae Malachy 2 Esdras 2:8 Gomorrhe = 1602. Gomorrha, 1630 (Gomorrah, 1629) Gomorrae Gomorrha Standard NT spelling; OT is Gomorrah. Cf. Gen. 10:19. 2 Pet. 2:6 Gomorrha 1602: Gomorrhe. = MS 98. Gomorrha, 1638 (Gomorrah, She, Gomorra, 1629) ,cucppc, Gomorrha 2 Esdras 2:10 Hierusalem = 1602. Jerusalem, 1629 Hierusalem Jerusalem 10:47 Jerusalem, 1629 Q o s, 1616 2 Esdras 2:18 I will send 1602: I shall send. will I send, 1629 I will send 2 Esdras 3:16 (twice) Isahac = 1602. Isaac, 1638 Isaac Isaac Tobit 4:12 Isaak [1602 different.] Isaac, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 loccs Isaac Mark 12:26 Isahac Bod: Isahac. Isaak subst. Isaac, 1629 (12:26, 1612 8 o H316) loccs Isaac Luke 20:37 Isahac = Bod. 2 Esdras 3:17 Sina Sinai, 1768 Sina Sinai Regularised to 1611’s form for the same Greek at Ecclus. 48:7 and Gal. 4:24, 25. Judith 5:14 Sina Sina (Sinai, 1837) 2ivc Sinai Acts 7:30, 38 Sina Sina 2ivc Sinai 306 2 Esdras 3:18 depth 1602: depths. depths, 1629 abyssos depth 2 Esdras 3:27 the citie = 1602. thy city, 1629 civitatem tuam the city 2 Esdras 3:35 or what people hath so kept = 1602. or what people have so kept, 1769 aut quae gens sic observavit or what people hath so kept 1769 presumably takes ‘people’ as plural. 2 Esdras 4:47 vnto you 1602: vnto thee. unto thee, 1638 tibi unto you This may be an example of the modern ‘you’ for the singular. 2 Esdras 7:68 the ten thousand part = 1602 (. . . tenne . . .). the ten thousandth part, 1638 the ten thousandth part 2 Esdras 8:43 the raine 1602: thy raine. thy rain, 1629 pluviam tuam the rain 2 Esdras 12:21 And two of them shall perish: the middle time approching, foure shall bee kept vntill their end begin to approch: but two shall be kept vnto the end. And two of them shall perish, the middle time approaching: four shall be kept until their end begin to approach: but two shall be kept unto the end. et duo quidem ex ipsis perient adpropinquante tempore medio, quattuor autem servabuntur in tempore, cum incipiet adpropinquare tempus eius ut finiatur, duo vero in finem servabuntur And two of them shall perish, the middle time approaching: four shall be kept until their end begin to approach: but two shall be kept unto the end. 1611 places ‘the middle time approaching’ with what follows, CT with what precedes. The verse is obscure: the received punctuation is kept because of the difficulty of making sense of the 1611 punctuation. 307 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Esdras 13:12 saw I = 1602. I saw, 1629 vidi saw I 2 Esdras 13:14 wonders 1602: these wonders. these wonders, 1629 mirabilia haec wonders 2 Esdras 14:43 and held not my tongue by night = 1602 (& . . .). and I held not my tongue by night, 1629 et nocte non tacebam and held not my tongue by night The personal pronoun is unnecessary. 2 Esdras 14:47 fountains 1602: fountaine. fountain, 1629 fons fountains 2 Esdras 15:22 vpon earth = 1602. upon the earth, 1629 super terram upon earth V. 29, ‘vpon earth’, unchanged. 2 Esdras 15:50 as floure 1602: as a floure. as a flower, 1613, 1616, 1629 sicut flos as a flower 2 Esdras 16:28 clefts of rockes 1602: clifts of stones (v. 29). clefts of the rocks, 1629 fissuras petrarum clefts of rocks = v. 29. 2 Esdras 16:30 Or, when as 1602: Or as when (v. 31). Or as when, 1638 aut sicut or, when as Though 1611 is unusual, it is possible English. 2 Esdras 16:42 as he that had no profit 1602: as he that winneth not (v. 43). as he that hath no profit, 1769 quasi qui fructum non capiat as he that had no profit 2 Esdras 16:52 For yet a little iniquitie shall be taken away 1602: For or euer it be long, iniquitie shalbe taken away. For yet a little, and iniquity shall be taken away, 1616, 1629 adhuc pusillum, et tolletur iniquitas For yet a little, and iniquity shall be taken away 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. 308 Tobit 1:3, 10, 17, 22; 7:3; 11:1, 16, 17; 14:4, 8, 10, 15 (twice); Judith 1:1, 16; 2:21 Nineue, Niniue (11:16) Nineve, 1762 (Nineveh, Tobit 1:3, 10, 17, 22, 7:3, 11:16, 17, 1629; Tobit 1:3, Judith, 1638) Nivtun Nineveh Either the NT should be regularised to ‘Nineve’ or the NT and Apoc. should be regularised to ‘Nineveh’. The latter course is followed because it keeps the spelling consistent (not a compelling argument unless universally applied) and because it keeps clear the fact that the word is tri-syllabic. Matt. 12:41 Nineue = Bod. Nineveh, 1629 Nivtuï:ci Nineveh Luke 11:32 Nineue Bod: Niniue. ncn. Nineve (Nineveh, 1699, 1873) Nineve, 1762 (ABS: Nineveh) Nivtuì Nineveh Tobit 2:10 and a whitenesse came in mine eyes 9 and a whiteness came into mine eyes sci t,tvnûn ìtuscuc:c ti, :cu, cgûcìucú, and a whitenesse came in my eyes 1611 makes sense so is reinstated. Tobit 3:17 she belongeth she belonged, 1629 ttiµóììti she belongeth The tense is odd but corresponds to the Greek. Tobit 4:10 Because that almes doth deliuer from death, and suffereth not Because that alms do deliver from death, and suffer not, 1837, 1863 (do deliver . . . suffereth) 10 oic:i tìtnucoúvn ts ûcvó:cu pút:ci sci cos tc Because that alms doth deliver from death, and suffereth not The Greek is singular, and the English makes ‘alms’ singular, as in the next verse, ‘for alms is’. 9 1602 and 1611 vary greatly in Tobit and Judith, so 1602 readings are only noted where there is a close relationship. 10 S gives 1629 as the source but I have not found this reading there; it is in 1817 F o . 309 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Tobit 5:15 to the wages to thy wages, 1629 oci tti :cv uioûcv, or: oci : c uioû c to the wages The change to ‘thy’ is natural to the context but 1611 is true to the Greek. Tobit 7:1 and after that they had saluted one another and after they had saluted one another, 1629 sci tycipt:iotv co:cu, sci co:ci co:nv and after that they had saluted one another 1611 occasionally uses this phrase elsewhere without later emendation, e.g. v. 8. Tobit 7:3 Nephthali = 1602. Nephthalim, 1638 (Nepthali, 1616) Ntgûcìi Nephthali Sinaiticus reads Ntgûcìiu, the reading found in 1:1, where ‘Nephthali’ remains unchanged. Matt. 4:13, 15, Nephthali = Bod. Nephthalim, 1638 Ntgûcìtiu Nephthalim Rev. 7:6 Nepthali = 1602. Nepthalim, 1638–1769, Amer. 1867 (Nephthalim, 1817 F o ) Ntgûcìtiu Nephthalim Tobit 8:10 I feare lest he be dead I fear lest he also be dead, 1629 Mn sci co:c, ótcûóv n I fear lest he be dead Tobit 13:18 Halleluiah 1602: Alleluia (v. 21). Alleluia, 1638 Aììnìcuic Alleluia So 1611, Rev. 19:1, 3, 4, 6, Aììnìcuïó. Judith title IVDETH 1602: Iudith. JUDITH, 1701 lOYAlO JUDITH 8:1 etc. Iudeth 1602: Judith. Judith lcuoiû Judith Judith 1:6 Hydaspes 1602: Jadason. Hydaspes (Hydaspe, 1629) Yoóotnv Hydaspes ‘Hydaspes’ restored by Cambridge 8 o 1858, S’s model (see S, p. 23). 310 Elimeans 1602: Elikes. Elymeans, 1629 Lìuucicv Elymeans Judith 1:8 Esdrelon = 1602. Esdrelom, 1638 Loopnìcv Esdraelon Marg. to ‘Esdraelon’ (Loopnìcv), 3:9, 4:6: ‘Or, Esdrelom’. Vulg.: ‘Hesdraelon’. ‘Esdraelon’ is now the common form, and 1611’s preferred form. 3:9; 4:6 Esdraelon Esdraelon Esdraelon 7:3 Esdraelon Esdraelom, 1638 Esdraelon Judith 2:4 etc. Olofernes 1602: Holophernes. Holofernes, 1638 Oìcgtpvn, Holofernes Received spelling, used elsewhere in 1611, retained. 3:5–7:16 Holofernes 1602: Holophernes. Holofernes (Olofernes, She, 1629 throughout) Oìcgtpvn, Holofernes G: ‘Olofernes’. Judith 2:20 A great multitude A great number, 1769 tcìu, A great multitude Judith 2:28 Aschalon Ascalon, 1629 Aoscìcvi Ascalon Judith 5:16 Pheresite Pherezite, 1638 1tptçcïcv Pherezite Judith 7:7 the fountaine the fountains, 1629 :c, tn,c, the fountains 1611 appears to be an error. Judith 7:18 Dotha-em Dothaim, 1638 Acûcïu Dothaim So 1611, 8:3. Judith 8:5 put on sackecloth on her loynes put on sackcloth upon her loins, 1629 sci tttûnstv tti :nv coguv co:n, oósscv put on sackcloth on her loins 1629 seems to improve 1611’s style unnecessarily. Judith 8:6 the eues of the Sabbath the eves of the sabbaths, 1629 tpcocµµó:cv the eves of the sabbath The plural is correctly represented in ‘eves’. 311 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Judith 8:29 all thy people all the people, 1629 tc, c ìcc, all thy people Judith 12:11 Ebrewe 1602: Hebrewesse (v. 10). Hebrew, 1630, 1638 Lµpcicv Hebrew Judith 14:10 the foreskinne of his flesh 1602: let himselfe be circumcised (v. 6) the flesh of his foreskin, 1629 :nv oópsc :n, óspcµuo:ic, co:c0 the foreskin of his flesh The ‘correction’ is understandable, but 1611’s reading (= G) is literal. Judith 15:4 Bethomasthem Betomasthem, 1638 Bci:cucoûciu Betomasthem Cf. 4:6, ‘Betomasthem’, ‘Bci:cutoûciu’. Judith 15:5 Choba Chobai, 1638 Xcµc Chobai The Greek varies, see v. 4, Xcµci, ‘Chobai’; consistency seems appropriate for the English. Judith 15:13 shee went before the people she went before all the people, 1629 tpcnìûtv tcv:c, : . c0 ìcc0 she went before the people Judith 16:24 to all them that are neerest to all them that were nearest, 1612 all, 1616, 1629 tcoi :cï, t,,io:c to all them that were nearest Rest of Esther 11:1 etc. 1 Macc. 1:18 etc. Ptolomeus Ptolome(e) Ptolemeus, 1638 Ptolemee, 1629 l:cìtucïc, l:cìtucïc, Ptolemee Ptolemee The Greek does not vary. Regularised to 1611’s predominant form, which is also closest to the popular spelling of this dynastic name (‘Ptolemy’). 1602: ‘Ptolome’, except 2 Macc. 10:12: ‘Philometer’. 312 Wisdom 10:10 trauailes 1602: labours. travails (travels, 1612 8 o s, 1629, 1817 F o , 1837) ucyûci, travails 1 Macc. 9:68 trauaile 1602: trauell. travail (travel, 1629–1762) tgcoc, travail Wisdom 10:14 gaue them perpetuall glory 1602: brought him to perpetuall worship. gave him perpetual glory, 1613 F o and Q o tocstv co: c oc¸cv cicvicv gave him perpetual glory 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. Wisdom 15:4 painters = 1602. painter’s, 1762 (1873: painters’) osic,pógcv painters’ Though singular would appear more natural, the Greek is plural; cf. ‘the mischievous inuention of men’ earlier in the verse. Wisdom 15:13 brickle 1602: fraile. brittle, 1762 (brick, 1616) brittle Wisdom 16:18 For sometimes = 1602. For sometime, 1629 tc:t For some time The parallel is with tc:t, ‘and at another time’, at the beginning of the next verse. Eph. 2:13; 5:8 sometimes 1602: sometime, sometimes. sometimes tc:t sometime Col. 1:21 sometimes 1602: sometime. sometime, 1629 tc:t sometime The sense is ‘for some time’ rather than ‘at some times’. Col. 3:7 sometime = 1602. some time tc:t sometime Titus 3:3 sometimes 1602: sometime. sometimes tc:t sometime 1 Pet. 3:20 sometime = 1602. sometime tc:t sometime 313 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Wisdom 16:29 vnfaithfull 1602: vnthankfull. unthankful, 1629 óycpio:cu unthankful S notes: ‘evidently an oversight. Vulg. and Junius have “ingrati,” the Bishops’ Bible “unthankful.” Cf. Luke 6:35. 2 Tim. 3:2’ (p. 180 n.). Wisdom 18:9 alike 1602: in like maner. alike (like, 1629, 1817 F o , 1837) cucic, alike Wisdom 18:18 And one throwen here, another there 1602: Then lay there one heere, another there. And one thrown here, and another there, 1638 sci cììc, óììcy n pigti, And one thrown here, another there Ecclus. 4:16 his generation = 1602. his generations, 1863 ,tvtci co:c0 his generation 1611 reading remains in some American texts. Ecclus. 7:24 haue care 1602: keepe. have a care, 1629 tpcotyt have care Ecclus. 11:25 no remembrance 1602: haue a good hope. no more remembrance, 1629 co uvnoûnot:ci no remembrance Ecclus. 13:19 lyons = 1602 (Lions, v. 20). lion’s, 1762 (1873: lions’) ìtcv:cv lions’ Ecclus. 17:24 those that faile 1602: such as be weake. those that failed, 1629 tsìtitcv:c, those that fail Though the present appears odd, there remains a similar present in the first part of the verse. Ecclus. 19:8 to friend = 1602. to friend (to a friend, 1629) tv giìc to friend 314 Ecclus 22:2 euery man that takes 1602: euery man that toucheth. every man that takes (euery man that taketh, 1613 F o ) every man that takes Cf. Esdras 4:21. 1762 and 1769 retain ‘takes’. Ecclus. 23:27 Commandement 1602: commandements. commandments, 1629 tv:cìcï, commandment Ecclus. 24:25 Physon 1602: Phison (v. 30). Phison, 1629 1iocv Phison Ecclus. 25:8, 9 Well is him Well is him Well is he All 19 other examples of adjective + ‘is’ are followed by ‘he’ or ‘she’; v. 9 later uses ‘he’: ‘Well is him that hath found prudence, and he that speaketh in the eares of him that will heare’. Cf. Prov. 6:19. Ecclus. 30:15 good state of body 1602: welfare. good estate of body, 1629 tot¸ic good state of body Ecclus. 32:1 If thou be made the master (of the feast) 1602: If thou be made a ruler. If thou be made the master [of a feast,], 1629 H,cúutvcv ot sc:to:nocv If thou be made the master of the feast, Ecclus. 35:15 Doeth not the teares run downe. 1602: Doeth not God see the teares that runne downe. Do not the tears . . . , 1638 coyi oóspuc Do not the tears 1611’s error appears to come from an incorrect revision of 1602 or from an incorrect reading of the revision. Cf. Ezek. 24:7. Ecclus. 35:18 till he hath smitten 1602: till he haue smitten. till he have smitten, 1629 tc, cv ouv:pi¸ n till he hath smitten 1611 seems acceptable, but is inconsistent with ‘till he haue taken away’ later in the verse. 315 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Ecclus. 44:5 reiected 1602: brought forth. recited, She, 1612 all, 1613 F o and Q o , 1616, 1629 oin,cúutvci ttn tv ,pcg n recited ‘Setting out in detail utterances in writing’. ‘Reiected’ is presumably a misreading of a handwritten change to 1602. Ecclus. 44:12 stands fast [1602 different.] standeth fast, 1769 stands fast See 1 Esdras 4:21. Ecclus. 47:4 Goliah 1602: Goliath. Goliath, 1629 Icìicû Goliath Ecclus. 47:23 Nabat = 1602. Nebat, 1629 Ncµc: Nabat Ecclus. 48:8 Who anointed 1602: Which diddest anoynt. Who anointedst, 1762 c ypicv who anointedst Ecclus. 48:12 Elizeus = 1602. Eliseus, 1638 Lìiocit Eliseus Ecclus. 49:4 Ezechias = 1602. Ezekias, 1613, 1616, 1629 Lçtsicu Ezekias Ecclus. 49:8 Ezechiel = 1602. Ezekiel, 1612 8 o s, 1629 ltçtsinì Ezekiel Ecclus. 51:12 deliuerest 1602: deliueredst. deliveredst, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 t¸tiìcu deliveredst Baruch 1:4 kings sonnes = 1602. kings’ sons, 1873 (king’s sons, 1762) uícv :cv µcoiìtcv kings’ sons Baruch 3:23 Merran 1602: of the land. Meran, 1638 Mtppcv Merran 316 Baruch 4:2 take heed 1602: take hold. take hold, 1629 ttiìcµc0 take heed 1611 may be deliberate. Baruch 6:2 vnto Babylon into Babylon ti, Bcµuìcvc unto Babylon Baruch 6:8 laid ouer with siluer [1602 different.] laid over with silver (gold, 1629) ttpióp,upc laid over with silver S notes this as an error in 1629; ‘silver’ restored in 1858 Cambridge 8 o , his model (p. 23). Baruch 6:9 loues [1602 different.] loveth, 1769 loves See 1 Esdras 4:21. 6:21 comes 1602: is in. cometh, 1769 comes Baruch 6:45 the workman = 1602 (. . . workeman). the workmen, 1762 cí :tyvï:ci the workman Song of Three, title [And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God, and blessing the Lord.] . . . [Then Azarias stood vp] . . . [And Nabuchodonosor.] [1602 different.] – fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace – verse 23. . . . And they walked – . . . Then Nebuchadnezzar– verse 24. 1638, 1769 (into the midst, 1762; ‘– verse 23’ omitted). – fell down bound into the midst of the burning fiery furnace – verse 23. . . . And they walked – . . . Then Nebuchadnezzar–verse 24. in the Hebrew [1602 different.] in the Hebrew (in the Chaldee, 1873) in the Hebrew Though S is correct in that the text of Daniel at this point is Chaldee, 1611 may be using ‘Hebrew’ loosely and deliberately. 317 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Song of Three 1 [Omitted] 1602: And they walked in the midst of the flame, praising God, and magnifying the Lord (first v., numbered 25). And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord, 1638 And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising God and blessing the Lord This is, incorrectly, part of the title in 1611. Consequently, there is an extra verse number in CT compared with 1611. Song of Three 17 (16) burnt offering = 1602 (v. 40). burnt offerings, 1629 cìcscu:cucoiv burnt offering Susannah title in Hebrew [1602 different.] in the Hebrew, 1638 in Hebrew Bel 27 fat = 1602 (v. 26). and fat, 1629 sci o:np fat Bel 33–5, 37, 39 Habacuc = 1602. Habbacuc, 1629 Auµcscuu Habacuc Manasses l. 2 their righteous 1602: the righteous. their righteous (the righteous, She) eorum their righteous He seems probable. Manasses ll. 19–20 (1611) for the multitude of mine iniquitie [1602 omits this part.] for the multitude of mine iniquities, 1762 for the multitude of my iniquity Though the plural is used throughout in the Vulgate, ‘iniquity’ was found acceptable by a long succession of editors, so should not be treated as an error. 1 Macc. 2:26, 54 Phineas 1602: Phinehes. Phinees, 1638 (Phinehas, 1612 Q o s, 1616) 1ivtt, Phinees 318 1 Macc. 2:42, 7:13 Assideans = 1602. Assideans (Asideans, 1873; 7:13, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1630) Aoiocicv Aoiocïci Asideans So 1611 at 2 Macc. 14:6. 2 Macc. 14:6 Asideans 1602: Assidei. Assideans, 1629 Aoiocïci Asideans 1 Macc. 2:70 Sepulchre = 1602 (sepulchre). sepulchres, 1629 :ógci, sepulchre 1 Macc. 4:18 your enemies 1602: our enemies. our enemies, 1629 :cv tyûpcv nucv your enemies 1611 may be deliberate. 1 Macc. 4:29 met with them 1602: came against them. met them with, 1612 Q o s, 8 o H316, 1613, 1629 ouvnv:notv co:cï, met them with 1 Macc. 5:9 Galead 1602: Galaad. Galaad, 1612 8 o s, 1629 Icìcco Galaad So 1611 elsewhere. 1 Macc. 5:13 Yea all our brethren that were in the places of Tobie, are put to death, their wiues and their children; Also they have caried away captiues, and borne away their stuffe Yea, all our brethren that were in the places of Tobie are put to death: their wives and their children also they have carried away captives, and borne away their stuff sci tóv:t, cí óotìgci nucv cí cv:t, tv :cï, Tcuµicu :tûcvó:cv:ci, sci nyucìc:iscoiv :c, ,uvcïsc, co:cv sci :c :tsvc Yea, all our brethren that were in the places of Tobie are put to death: their wives and their children also they have carried away captives, and borne away their stuff 1611’s punctuation makes sense as English but falsifies the Greek. See p. 150. 1 Macc. 5:25 in peaceable maner 1602: louingly. in a peaceable manner, 1769 tipnvisc, in peaceable manner 319 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Macc. 5:26 Bosora 1602: Bosor. Bosora (Bossora, 1873) See note. Bosora S gives Sinaiticus as the source for ‘Bcocpc’, Aldus, Alexandrinus and Vaticanus for ‘Bcoocpc’ and Complutensian for ‘Bcocppc’ (p. 53). V. 28 reads ‘Bosorra’ in 1611, ‘Bosora’ in CT. in Alema 1602: Alimis. and Alema, 1629 tv Aìtuci, in Alema 1 Macc. 5:65 townes thereof (second occurrence) 1602: towres round about it. towers thereof, 1629 túp,cu, co:n, towers thereof The printer may well have made this error because of ‘townes thereof’ earlier in the verse. 1 Macc. 6:1 Elimais 1602: Elimas. Elymais, 1638 Lìuucì, Elymais 1 Macc. 6:5 brought in tidings 1602: brought him tidings. brought him tidings, 1629 ótc,,tììcv co: c brought in tidings 1611 may be deliberate. 1 Macc. 7:24 the coast 1602: the borders. the coasts, 1629 :c cpic the coast 1 Macc. 7:45 Gasera 1602: Gazara. Gazera, 1638 Icçnpc Gazera So 1611, 4:15. 1 Macc. 8:4 that place [1602 different.] the place, 1629 :c0 :ctcu that place 1 Macc. 8:8 Lidia 1602: Lydia. Lydia, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 Auoicv Lydia 320 1 Macc. 8:17 Accas 1602: Jacob (m. Or, Acchus). Accos, 1629 Assc, Accos 1 Macc. 8:26 couenant 1602: couenants. covenants, 1769 :c guìó,uc:c covenant 1 Macc. 9:35 Nabbathites 1602: Nabuthites. Nabathites, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 Ncµc:cicu, Nabathites 1 Macc. 10:25 vnto him 1602: vnto them. unto them, 1629 co:cï, unto them 1611 probably a printer’s error. 1 Macc. 10:29 I doe free 1602: I discharge. do I free, 1629 I do free 1 Macc. 10:45 for building 1602: for the making. for the building, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 :c0 ciscocunûnvci for the building 1 Macc. 10:47 peace, m.: True 1602: for he was a prince that had dealt friendly with them. true peace, She, 1612 all, 1613 F o and Q o , 1616 etc. true peace c:i co:c, t,tvt:c co:cï, ópyn,c, ìc,cv tipnviscv. He’s margin is puzzling, apparently an error (see p. 71). 1611 evidently revised in the light of G: ‘he was the first that had intreated of true peace with them’. 1 Macc. 10:58 gaue vnto him 1602: and hee gaue Alexander. gave unto him (he gave unto him, 1630, 1769 and others; not 1638) t¸tot:c co: c gave unto him 1 Macc. 10:89 the kings blood 1602: the kings next blood. the kings’ blood, 1873 (king’s, 1762) :cï, ou,,tvtoiv :cv µcoiìtcv the kings’ blood 321 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Macc. 11:6 Ioppa = 1602 (Joppa). Joppe, 1616, 1638 [not 1629] lcttnv Joppe 1 Macc. 11:34 Lidda 1602: Lydda. Lydda, 1638 Auooc Lydda 1 Macc. 11:56 Triphon 1602: Tryphon. Tryphon, 1612 Q o s, 8 o H316, 1616, 1629 Tpúgcv Tryphon 1 Macc. 11:62 the chiefe men 1602: their sonnes. their chief men, 1629 :cv ópycv:cv co:cv the chief men 1 Macc. 11:70 Absolon 1602: Absalomus. Absalom, 1629 A¸cìcucu Absalom 13:11 Absolom 1602: Absolomus. Absalom, 1613, 1629 A¸cìcucu Absalom 1 Macc. 12:19 Omiares 1602: Onias. Oniares, 1629 Ovic Oniares B and G: ‘Onias’. 1611 marg.: ‘read out of Ios. which Areus sent to Onias’; this implies care, but ‘Omiares’ is difficult to explain unless one posits both a typographical error (m for n) and a conflation at some point with the following name, ‘Areus’. 1 Macc. 13:39 which yee owe vs, if there were any other tribute paide in Jerusalem owe us: and if there were any other tribute paid in Jerusalem cv cgtiìt:t, sci tì :i cììc t:tìcvtï:c tv ltpcuocìnu owe us: and if there were any other tribute paid in Jerusalem 1611 reads very awkwardly; while it is not certainly an error, the correction is retained. 322 1 Macc. 13:51 in the hundred seuentie and one yere 1602: in the hundred threescore and eleuenth yeere. in the hundred seventy and first year, 1769 (. . . hundreth, 1616) in the hundred seventy and first year 1 Macc. 13:53 and dwelt 1602: where hee dwelt. ; and he dwelt, 1701 sci csti ; and dwelt S comments that ‘notwithstanding ch. 16:1, Simon, not John, is intended by the Translators to be the subject of “dwelt”’ (p. 232 n.). B (and G) reads: ‘and caused him to dwell at Gaza’. This makes it likely that S is correct, for the reading is a clear change made by the translators; there is the possibility of a printer’s error confounding the translators’ intentions, but this possibility isn’t enough to justify change. 1 Macc. 15:22 The same thing 1602: The same words. The same things, 1629 :co:c The same thing 1 Macc. 15:23 Sycion 1602: Sicyon. Sicyon, 1629 2isucvc Sicyon Phaseilis 1602: Facelides. Phaselis, 1638 1conìioc Phaselis Sidee 1602: Sida. Side, 1638 2ionv Side Gortina 1602: Cortyna. Gortyna, 1616, 1629 Icp:uvcv Gortyna 323 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Macc. 16:14 threescore and seuenth 1602: threescore and seuenteenth. threescore and seventeenth, 1769 tµocucu sci tµocunsco:c0 threescore and seventeenth Printer’s error, presumably. 2 Macc. 1:36 is as much to say as = 1602 (. . . say, as). is as much as to say, 1638 (is as much to say, 1629) is as much to say as 2 Macc. 3:12 such wrong should be done [1602 different.] such wrongs should be done, 1612 Q o s, 1629 óoisnûnvci such wrong should be done ‘Wrong’ or ‘wrongs’ is implicit in the verb. 1611 rejects B’s (‘Yea & that it were vnpossible for those mens meaning to be disceaued’) for G, where the singular is also found (‘And that it were altogether vnpossible to do this wrong to them’). 2 Macc. 4:4 Appollonius 1602: Apollonius. Apollonius, 1612 all, 1616, 1629 (Appolonius, 1873) Atcììcvicv Apollonius 2 Macc. 4:13 no high priest 1602: which should not be called a Priest. no high priest (not high priest, She, 1612 all, 1616, 1629) no high priest sci cos ópyitptc, lóocvc, ottpµóììcuocv óvc,vticv. He: ‘through the exceeding profaneness of Iason that vngodly wretch, and no high priest’. If this is a deliberate rewriting of B (‘thorowe the vngratious and vnhearde wickednesse of Iason, which shoulde not be called a 324 priest, but an vngodly person’) in the light of G (‘by the exceeding wickednesse of Iason, not the hie Priest, but the vngodly person’), ‘not high priest’ may have been the translators’ intention, especially as the sense remains the same. 2 Macc. 4:21 Manastheus 1602: Menestheus. Menestheus, 1629 Mtvtoûtc, Menestheus vnto Egypt 1602: into Egypt. into Egypt, 1638 ti, Aì,ut:cv unto Egypt Cf. ‘vnto Phenice’ (unchanged) in the next verse. 2 Macc. 4:23 Three yeere afterward 1602: After three yeeres Three years . . . , 1630 (not 1638) Three years foresaid = 1602 (foresayd). aforesaid, 1629 foresaid 2 Macc. 4:30 they of Tharsus 1602: the Tharsians. . . . Tarsus, 1638 (Tharsos, 1629) Tcpotï, Tarsus 2 Macc. 4:40 beganne first to offer violence on Auranus, being the leader began first to offer violence; one Auranus being the leader sc:np¸c:c ytipcv óoiscv tpcn,nocutvcu :ivc, Aupcvcu began first to offer violence; one Auranus being the leader 1611 appears to be an error, ‘one’ being mistakenly changed to ‘on’, and the punctuation made to fit. 2 Macc. 4:50 in power = 1602. of power, 1629 spc:cúv:cv in power 2 Macc. 5:20 the aduersities 1602: trouble. the adversity, 1629 ouott:nuó:cv the adversities 2 Macc. 8:33 Calisthenes = 1602. Callisthenes, 1638 Kcììioûtvnv Callisthenes 325 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes who was fled 1602: which was fled. who had fled, 1769 ttgtu,c:c who was fled 2 Macc. 9:3 Ecbatana = 1602. Ecbatane, 1762 Lsµó:cvc Ecbatana 2 Macc. 11:4 (twice) thousand footmen, and his thousand horsemen 1602: multitude . . . thousands of. thousands of footmen, and his thousands of horsemen, 1629 :cï, uupióoiv :cï, yiìióoiv thousand footmen, and his thousand horsemen 2 Macc. 11:9 altogether 1602: all together. all together, 1629 cuc0 ot tóv:t, all together 2 Macc. 11:17 Absalon Absalon, Absolom (Logos) Aµtoocìcu Absalom 2 Macc. 11:21 eight and fortie yeere, the foure and twentie day 1602: fortie and eighth yeere, the twenty and fourth day. eight and fortieth year, the four and twentieth day, 1638 eight and fortieth year, the four and twentieth day 2 Macc. 12:15 Iosua 1602: Josuah. Joshua, 1629 lnoc0 Joshua 2 Macc. 12:42 for the sinne 1602: for the same offence. for the sins, 1629 cucp:icv for the sin 326 2 Macc. 13:23 confounded 1602: he was astonied in his minde. confounded ([was] confounded, 1873) ouvtyúûn confounded S’s point is that there is a change of subject from the previous verb; the inclusion of ‘was’ helps to signal this, but is not a necessary correction to part of a very strange bit of work 2 Macc. 14:16 Dessaro 1602: Dessau. Dessau, 1629 tooccu Dessau 2 Macc. 15:3 Then this most vngracious wretch demanded 1602: For all this yet sayd the vngracious person. Then the most ungracious . . . , 1629 c ot :piocìi:npic, Then this most ungracious . . . Colophon The end of Apocrypha [1602 different.] THE END OF THE APOCRYPHA, 1638 THE END OF THE APOCRYPHA Matt. 1:5 (twice) Boos = Bod. 11 Booz, 1629 Bccç Booz Matt. 1:9 (twice) Achas, and Achas Bod: Achas, ˆ Achas. and ins. Achaz, 1629 Ayóç Achaz Matt. 2:1 etc. Hierusalem = Bod. Jerusalem, 1629 ltpcocìuuc Jerusalem Matt. 3:12 but wil burne vp Bod: but will burne vp. he will burne subst. but he will burn up, 1629 but will burn up 11 Information on the 1602 text and annotations is also available in Allen and Jacobs. 327 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Matt. 5:22 Racha Bod: Racha. ncn. Raca, 1638 pcsó Raca Matt. 6:3 let not thy left hand know, what thy right doeth = Bod. let not thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth, 1613, 1629 [doth, 1629; doeth, 1638] un ,vc:c n ópio:tpó ocu :i tcitï n ot¸ió ocu let not thy left hand know what thy right doeth 1611 restored because ‘hand’ is understood in both cases, and so correctly omitted. Matt. 8:25 and awoke, saying Bod: and awoke him, saying. ncn. and awoke him, saying, She, 1613 F o , Q o n,tipcv co:cv, ìt,cv:t, and awoke him, saying All earlier versions and subsequent editions read ‘and awoke him, saying’. Matt. 9:34 casteth out the deuils = Bod. casteth out devils, 1762 tsµóììti :c ociucvic casteth out the devils Matt. 12:23 Is this the sonne Bod: Is not this that sonne. the subst. Is not this the son, 1638 Mn:i co:c, to:iv c uíc, Is this the son S notes of 1638’s reading: ‘so, though wrongly, nearly all the moderns, but not Scholefield, in the Cambridge Greek and English N.T. . . . , and the Tract Society’s Bible 1868. Archbishop Trench contrasts the insertion of “not” in John 8:22, 18:35, Acts 7:42, 10:47. Compare also John 7:26, 31’ (p. 233 n.). Since the inclusion or omission of ‘not’ does not change the meaning, 1611’s reading must stand, even though it contrasts with John 4:29. G also has ‘not’. Matt. 13:4 the wayes side = Bod. the way side, She, 1613 :nv cocv the wayside He keeps B’s only use of ‘wayes side’ (G: ‘way side’). 328 Luke 8:5 the wayes side Bod: the way side. ncn. the way side, 1743 :nv cocv the wayside Matt. 13:6 had not root = Bod. had no root, 1762 un tytiv piçcv had not root Cf. v. 21, cos tyti ot piçcv, ‘yet hath hee not root’; unchanged. Matt. 14:9 for the othes sake = Bod. . . . oath’s . . . , 1762 (1873: oaths’) oic ot :cu, cpscu, for the oaths’ sake The Greek switches from singular (Matt. 14:7) to plural in these verses. Mark 6:26 for his othes sake = Bod. oic :cu, cpscu, for his oaths’ sake Matt. 14:34 Genesaret Bod: Genezaret. ncn. Gennesaret, 1629 Itvvnocpt: Gennesaret Traditional spelling. Mark 6:53 Genesareth Bod: Genezareth. ncn. Gennesaret, 1762 (Genesaret, 1873) Itvnocpt: Gennesaret Luke 5:1 Genesareth Bod: Genezareth. ncn. Gennesaret, 1762 (Gennesareth, 1701) Itvvnocpt: Gennesaret Matt. 16:16 Thou art Christ = Bod. Thou art the Christ, 1762 2u tï c Xpio:c, Thou art Christ 1611’s reading accepts what went before and proved acceptable for 150 years. Matt. 16:19 in heauen: whatsoeuer thou shalt loose on earth Bod: in heauen, and whatsoeuer thou shalt loose in earth. on subst. in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, 1616, 1629 tv :cï, copcvcï,· sci c tcv ìúo n, tti :n, ,n, in heaven: whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth Matt. 20:29 Hiericho = Bod. Jericho, 1616, 1629 ltpiyc Jericho So 1611 elsewhere. 329 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Matt. 23:24 straine at a gnat Bod: straine out a gnat. ncn. strain at a gnat (strain out a gnat, 1873) cí oi0ìiçcv:t, :cv scvctc strain at a gnat Tyndale etc., ‘strayne out a gnat’, R, ‘straine a gnat’. S notes that ‘out’ is found in Baskett’s 8vo., London, 1754 (p. 201 n.). 1611’s reading is probably deliberate. See p. 44. Matt. 26:75 the words of Iesus = Bod (Jesu). the word of Jesus, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) :c0 pnuc:c, :c0 lnoc0 the words of Jesus Matt. 27:22 Pilate said vnto them = Bod. Pilate saith unto them, 1629 ìt,ti co:cï, c liìc:c, Pilate said unto them Matt. 27:46 Lamasabachthani = Bod. lama sabachthani, 1629 ìcuc ocµcyûcvi lama sabachthani Mark 15:34 lamasabachthani Bod: lama sabachthani. ncn. lama sabachthani, 1629 ìcuuc ocµcyûcvi lama sabachthani Matt. 27:52 bodies of Saints which slept = Bod. bodies of the saints which slept, 1762 ocuc:c :cv stsciunutvcv c,icv bodies of saints which slept 1762 is correct by the Greek. Mark 2:4 for preasse = Bod. for the press, 1743 oic :cv cyìcv for press Luke 8:19 has ‘for the preasse’, but 1611 follows Bod, and was long found acceptable. Mark 5:6 he came Bod: he ranne. ncn. he ran, 1638 topcutv he came Translated ‘ran’ elsewhere in 1611, and here in B and G. This may be an error but can readily be understood as a deliberate late change. 330 Mark 6:7 he calleth = Bod. he called, 1769 tpcoscìtï:ci he calleth Mark 10:18 There is no man good, but one = Bod. there is none good but one, 1638 cooti, ó,cûc,, ti un tï, there is no man good but one This is an unnecessary correction of 1611’s English. S notes: ‘a variation taken from Matt. 19:17. A like change might well be made in some other places, e.g. Matt. 11:27, [Mark?] 13:32. In John 10:28 “any”, 29, “none” of 1638–1762 are rejected by 1769 and later Bibles for “any man”, “no man” of 1611–30; “man” however being printed in italic type’ (p. 187 n.). Mark 10:46 high wayes side = Bod. highway side (high-way side, 1629, high-way- side, 1638) tcpc :nv cocv highway side Cf. Matt. 13:4, Luke 8:5. Mark 11:8 branches of the trees Bod: branches off the trees. ncn. branches off the trees, 1638 o:iµóoc, tsct:cv ts :cv otvopcv branches of the trees The change is unnecessary; ‘of ’ can mean ‘from’ or ‘out of’; moreover, there is an element of tautology in ‘cut down branches off ’. Mark 14:32 Gethsemani = Bod. Gethsemane, 1616, 1638 Itûonucvn Gethsemane So 1611 at Matt. 26:36. Mark 14:36 not that I will, but what thou wilt Bod: not that I will, but that thou wilt, be done. not what I will, but what thou wilt, 1629 óìì co :i t,c ûtìc, óììc :i oú not that I will, but what thou wilt 331 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Mark 15:41; 16:7; Luke 4:44 Galile Bod: Galilee. ncn. Galilee, 1629 (16:7, 1612 Q o s, 8 o H316, NT, 1616; Luke 4:44, 1612 all, 1616) tv : n Icìiìcic Galilee So 1611 elsewhere. Luke 1:3 hauing had perfect vnderstanding of things Bod: hauing perfect vnderstanding of al things. exactly atteyned vnto subst. having had perfect understanding of all things, 1629 tcpnscìcuûn- sc:i cvcûtv tcoiv óspiµc, having had perfect understanding of things Bod suggests the translators intended to retain ‘al’, but the reading still makes sense and may be deliberate. Luke 1:5, 7, 13, 24, 36, 40, 41 (twice), 57 Elizabeth = Bod. Elisabeth, 1638 Lìioóµt: Elizabeth G, ‘Elisabet’. 1611 represents a deliberate decision to stay with the normal spelling rather than to go with the more accurate transliteration. ‘Elisabeth’ is neither the one nor the other. Luke 1:74 out of the hands = Bod. out of the hand, 1762 ts ytipc, out of the hands Translated as singular elsewhere. The singular is also used at v. 71 in a similarly plural context. But 1762’s change is not necessary. Luke 3:21 and it came to passe Bod: Nowe it came to passe, as all the people were baptized, and when it came to pass, 1629 L,tvt:c ot it came to pass 1611 has changed the order of the Greek, but 1629’s correction seems right. ‘And’ does not make sense here. 332 Jesus was baptized, and did pray, that the heauen was opened. Jesus also being subst. praying subst. Luke 3:31 Menam = Bod. Menan, 1629 ucivcv Menan Luke 3:35 Phaleg Bod: Phaleg. Palec subst. Phalec, 1629 1óìts Phalec (Bod’s deletion of the substituted ‘Palec’ restores the text’s ‘Phaleg’.) Luke 4:27 Elizeus = Bod. Eliseus, 1638 Lìiocicu Eliseus Luke 7:11 Naim Bod: Naim. Nain. Naim subst. Nain, 1638 Nciv Nain (Bod’s deletion of the substituted ‘Nain’ restores the text’s ‘Naim’.) Luke 8:8 And when hee saide these things Bod: And as hee sayd these things. ncn. And when he had said these things, 1629 Tc0:c ìt,cv And when he said these things Luke 13:4 Siloe Bod: Siloe. Siloam subst (and cancelled). Siloam, 1629 2iìccu Siloam The translators struck through ‘Siloe’ and placed ‘Siloam’ in the margin; they then struck through ‘Siloam’ and underlined ‘Siloe’. They made and then rejected 1629’s change. Luke 17:34 the other shall be left Bod: the other shal be left alone. and the other shall be left, 1638 sci c t:tpc, ógtûnot:ci taken, the other shall be left 333 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Luke 19:2 Zacheus = Bod. Zacchæus, 1835, 1857 etc. Zcsycïc, Zacchaeus 19:5 Bod: Zache. Zacheus subst. (Zaccheus, 1638–1769, 1817 8 o and F o , 1837) 19:8 Bod: Zache. Zacheus subst. Luke 19:9 the sonne of Abraham Bod: the childe of Abraham. the sonne subst. a son of Abraham, 1762 uíc, Aµpcóu the son of Abraham Luke 20:12 he sent the third = Bod. he sent a third, 1762 ttu¸ci :pi:cv he sent the third There is no article in the Greek, so the change is correct if one is dealing with seeming errors. However, the same reading is found in B and G. So, successive translators had the opportunity to make the change but did not. Luke 23:19 cast in prison = Bod. cast into prison, 1616, 1743 µtµìnutvc, ti, guìcsnv cast in prison ‘Cast into’ is 1611’s usual rendering, but ‘cast in’ is fine. Luke 24:13 Emaus = Bod. Emmaus, 1612 Q o s, NT, 1613, 1616, 1629 Luucc0, Emmaus Luke 24:18 Cleophas = Bod. Cleopas, 1629 Kìtctc, Cleopas 334 John 1:45–9; 21:2 Nathaneel 1602: Nathanael. Nathanael, 1629 Ncûcvcnì Nathanael John 5:18 not onely because hee = 1602. because he not only, 1629 c:i co ucvcv tìutv not only because he 1611 restored because the correction is of its English. John 7:16 Iesus answered them, = 1602 (Jesus . . .). Jesus answered them, and said, 1634, 1638 óttspiûn co:cï, c lnoc0, sci tïttv Jesus answered them, My Though 1611’s reading may be a sin of omission, the translators may have allowed Bod’s reading to stand, as their early successors in turn let their reading stand. John 8:30 those words =1602 (. . . wordes). these words, 1629 Tc0:c these words 1611 appears to be an error, perhaps because of ‘those’ in the previous verse. Cf. v. 28, ‘these things’. Contrast ‘those things’, v. 26, where the reference is remote rather than immediate. John 8:33 Abraham Abrahams, She Aµpcóu Abraham’s John 11:3 his sister = 1602. his sisters, 1629 cí óotìgci his sister The error goes back to the Great Bible. So the translators may have chosen to retain it, in spite of the Greek and the later implication that Mary and Martha are referred to (v. 19). John 11:34 They say vnto him = 1602. They said unto him, 1769 ìt,cuoiv co: c They say unto him John 12:22 told Iesus = 1602 (tolde Jesus). tell Jesus, 1762 ìt,cuoiv : c lnoc0 told Jesus The verbs here and in the next verse are present; 1611’s change of tense is awkward but not unusual, and continued at the beginning of the next verse. In the light of B and G’s use of past tense through the whole verse, it appears as a partial attempt to be truer to the Greek. 335 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes John 14:6 the Trueth 1602: and the Trueth. the truth (and the truth, 1638–1817 8 o ) n óìnûtic the truth S describes 1638’s reading as one ‘it would have been better to have finally adopted’ (p. 23). John 15:4 and in you 1602: and I in you. and I in you, She só,c tv ouïv and I in you Printer’s error. John 15:20 then the Lord = 1602 (. . . lord). than his lord, 1762 :c0 supicu co:c0 than the lord John 16:25 the time commeth = 1602. but the time cometh, 1756 óìì tpyt:ci cpc the time cometh óìì not present in all texts but is in the Textus Receptus. Here 1611 has followed B against G (which has ‘but’); the omission appears to be deliberate. John 21:17 beginning He said vnto him = Bod. He saith unto him, 1638 ìt,ti co: c He said unto him Acts 2:22 by miracles, wonders, and signes 1602: with miracles, wonders, and signs. by miracles and wonders and signs, 1638 ouvóutoiv sci :tpcoiv sci onutici, by miracles, wonders and signs 1611’s omission of ‘and’ follows 1602, and may well be deliberate, sacrificing literalism to rhythm. Acts 4:6 Caiphas 1602: Caiaphas Caiaphas, She Kcïógcv Caiaphas Acts 5:34 a doctour of Law = 1602. a doctor of the law, 1762 vcucoioóoscìc, a doctor of law The same word is rendered ‘Doctours of the Law’, Luke 5:17. Acts 6:5, 8; 7:59; 8:2; 11:19; 22:20 Steuen = 1602. Stephen, 1629 2:tgcvc, Stephen 336 Acts 6:5 Permenas = 1602. Parmenas, 1629 lcputvcv Parmenas Acts 6:12 came vpon = 1602. came upon (came vnto, She) ttio:óv:t, came upon ‘Coming on’. Acts 7:16 Sichem (twice) = 1602. Sychem, 1638 2uytu Sychem 1611’s spellings conform to some editions of the Greek. Emor = 1602. Emmor, 1629 Luucp Emmor Acts 7:28 Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday? = 1602 (. . . mee . . .). Wilt thou kill me, as thou diddest the Egyptian yesterday? (as thou killedst, 1752, 1762, 1911) un óvtìtïv ut ou ûtìti, cv :pctcv óvtïìt, tyût, :cv Ai,út:icv Wilt thou kill me, as thou didst the Egyptian yesterday? 1752’s reading is correct by the Greek, but 1611’s is that of its predecessors; presumably the translators judged that it was unnecessary to repeat ‘kill’. Acts 7:35 by the handes = 1602. by the hand, 1762 tv ytipi by the hands Acts 8:32 the shearer = 1602. his shearer, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) :c0 stipcv:c, co:cv the shearer Acts 10:9 vpon the house 1602: into the highest part of the house. upon the housetop, 1629 tti :c ocuc upon the house Contrast Matt. 24:17, tti :c0 ocuc:c,, ‘on the house top’. Acts 15:23 And wrote = 1602. And they wrote and they wrote CT reading preserved because of the difficulty of following the sentence otherwise. 337 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Acts 16:1 etc. 2 Cor. 1:1 etc. Timotheus Timothie Timotheus Timothy Tiucûtc, Timothy Timothy ‘Timotheus’ is used in Apoc., and is left unchanged there. The disciple is only given as ‘Timotheus’ once after 2 Thess. 1:1. ‘Timothie’ appears to be 1611’s preferred form once 1602 has set the example with ‘Timothy’ in the title to the first epistle. MS 98 also changes from ‘Timotheus’ to ‘Timothe’ at this point. CT = 1611. See p. 147. Acts 18:5 pressed in spirit 1602: constrained by the spirit. pressed in the spirit, 1769 ouvtiyt:c : c tvtúuc:i pressed in spirit Acts 19:19 Many also of them = 1602. Many of them also, 1769 íscvci ot :cv Many also of them Acts 21:1 Choos = 1602. Coos, 1638 (Cos, 1873) Kcv Cos So 1611, 1 Macc. 15:23. Acts 21:2 Phenicea 1602: Phenice. Phenicia, She, 1629 1civisnv Phenice Changed for consistency. Acts 23:3 Then saith Paul unto him = 1602 Then said Paul unto him :c:t c lc0ìc, tpc, co:cv tïtt Then said Paul unto him 1602 and KJB are unique in having the present tense. B 1568 has ‘sayde’. See p. 36. Acts 24:14 in the Law and the Prophets = 1602 (. . . & . . .). in the law and in the prophets, 1762 sc:c :cv vcucv sci :cï, tpcgn:ci, in the law and the prophets 338 Acts 24:24 which was a Iew 1602: which was a Jewesse (v. 25). which was a Jewess, 1629 c0o n lcuocic which was a Jew 1611 is probably intentional. Acts 24:27 Portius = 1602 (v. 28). Porcius, 1638 lcpsicv Porcius Acts 25:6 sitting in the iudgement seat 1602: sate downe in the iudgement seate. sitting on the judgment seat, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) scûioc, tti :c0 µnuc:c, sitting in the judgement seat Compare Acts 8:28, scûnutvc, tti :c0 cpuc:c,, ‘sitting in his charet’. Consequently ‘in the iudgement seat’ cannot be dismissed with confidence as an error, even though other uses of scûioc, tti (Acts 12:21; 25:17) are rendered ‘sate vpon’ and ‘sate on’. Acts 25:23 was entred = 1602. was entered (were entered, 1873) tiotìûcv:cv was entered Plural past participle; S’s emendation restores the reading of all KJB’s predecessors; 1611’s ‘was entred’ looks like an error, perhaps caused by the printer being misled by ‘Agrippa was come’ earlier in the verse, but it reads well enough in context not to have elicited earlier correction. Acts 27:5 Lysia = 1602. Lycia, 1629 Ausic, Lycia Acts 27:7 Gnidus 1602: Gnidum. Cnidus, 1638 Kviocv Cnidus Probably not a typographical error since both G and B spell with G. Acts 27:18 And being exceedingly tossed with a tempest the next day 1602: The next day when we were tossed with an exceeding tempest. And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day, 1638 ogcopc, ot ytiucçcutvcv nucv, : n t¸n, And we being exceedingly tossed with a tempest, the next day 1611 looks like an error: it goes against the Greek and the earlier translations. 339 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Acts end The end of the Acts of the Apostles 1602: Here endeth the Acts of the Apostles. Omitted, 1629 – Rom. 3:24 Iesus Christ 1602: Christ Jesus. = MS 98 (Jesus-Christ). 12 Christ Jesus, 1762 Xpio: c lnoc0 Jesus Christ MS 98 strengthens the case that the translators deliberately did not follow the Greek word order. Rom. 4:12 but also walke 1602: but vnto them also that walke. = MS 98. but who also walk, 1762 óììc sci :cï, o:ciyc0oi but also walk ‘Who’ comes earlier in the sentence and does not need repetition. Cf. Heb. 8:8, which probably should be treated identically. Rom. 4:19 an hundred yere old 1602: an hundred yeeres olde. MS 98: —. 13 an hundred years old, 1630 (not 1638) a hundred years old Rom. 4:19 Saraes = 1602. MS 98: —. Sara’s, 1629 (Sarah’s, 1762–1963) 2óppc, Sara’s So 1611 elsewhere in NT. 9:9 Sara = 1602, MS 98. Sara (Sarah, 1762–1963) 2óppc Sara 12 ‘= MS 98’ signifies that the He reading and MS 98 are identical. 13 I.e., MS 98 has no entry. 340 Rom. 6:12 Let not sinne reigne therfore 1602: let not sinne therefore reigne. = MS 98. Let not sin therefore reign, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 Mn cov µcoiìtut:c n cucp:ic Let not sin reign therefore The change to word order is of dubious quality as English and not exactly right in relation to the Greek. Rom. 7:2 the law of the husband 1602: the law of her husband. MS 98: —. the law of her husband, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 :c0 vcucu :c0 óvopc, the law of the husband Rom. 7:13 Was that then which is good made death vnto me 1602: Was that then which was good, made death vnto mee? MS 98: Was then that w c is good made death vnto me? Was then that which is good made death unto me, 1612 Q o s, 1616, 1629 :c cov ó,cûcv tuci ,t,cvtv ûóvc:c, Was that then which is good made death unto me Unnecessary change, but found in MS 98. See p. 33. Rom. 9:29 Sabboth = 1602. MS 98: —. Sabaoth, 1629 ocµccû Sabaoth ‘Sabaoth’ transliterates the Greek and is the form at James 5:4. The phrase is effectively a title. CT capitalises Rom. 9:29 but not James 5:4. James 5:4 Sabaoth = 1602. = MS 98 (sabaoth). sabaoth (Sabbaoth, She) ocµccû Sabaoth 341 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Rom. 11:28 for your sake 1602: for your sakes. MS 98: —. for your sakes, 1762 oi ouc, for your sake So 1611 at 1 Thess. 1:5, but ‘sakes’ at John 11:15, 12:30. Evidently an unnecessary change. Rom. 12:2 that acceptable 1602: and acceptable. = MS 98. and acceptable, 1629 sci toópto:cv that acceptable MS 98 confirms that the translators deliberately restored Tyndale’s reading. See p. 32. Rom. 14:6 He that regardeth a day 1602: He that esteemeth the day. MS 98: He that regardeth the day. He that regardeth the day, 1629 c gpcvcv :nv nutpcv He that regardeth a day 1629 = MS 98. 1611 may be a printer’s error, but this is not certain. See p. 33. Rom. 14:10 wee shall all stand = 1602 (. . . shal . . .). MS 98: we shall all be p r sented before the judgment seate of Christ. for we shall all stand, 1638 tóv:t, ,cp tcpco:nocutûc we shall all stand 1638 corrects following the Greek. 1611 follows Tyndale and B against G and R. Since their predecessors gave them a choice and MS 98 confirms that they revised this verse, 1611 must be taken as deliberate and therefore restored. Rom. 16:9 Vrbane 1602: Urban. MS 98: —. Urbane (Urban, 1873) Oopµcvcv Urbane Now usually Urbanus. 1611 chooses an anglicised form (as with ‘Apollo’), as had Tyndale and B, but uses its own spelling. It rejects G and R’s ‘Urbanus’. Rom. 16:10 Appelles 1602: Apelles. MS 98: —. Apelles, 1616, 1629 Attììnv Apelles 342 Rom. 16 subscription of the Church = 1602, MS 98. of the Church (to the Church, She, 1613) :n, tv Kt,yptci, tssìnoic,. of the Church MS 98: Written to the Romanes from Corinthus, and sent by Phoebe servant of the church at Cenchera. 1 Cor. 1:12 etc. Apollo = 1602. MS 98: Apollos. Apollos, 1638 Atcììc, Apollos 1638 = MS 98. 1611 sometimes uses ‘Apollos’, which has become the standard form and is therefore retained in spite of what seem to have been the translators’ intentions. See p. 33. 1 Cor. 4:9 approued to death 1602: appointed to death. MS 98: —. appointed to death, 1616, 1629 ttiûcvc:icu, approved to death Though ‘approved’ is a hard reading (i.e. more difficult to understand), it fits with the positive sense of the Apostles in the passage. 1611 is a deliberate change, and one knows from Bois’s notes that this verse was the subject of close discussion. 1 Cor. 7:5 Defraud you not one the other 1602: Defraud you not the one the other. = MS 98. Defraud ye not one the other (Defraud you not one another, 1613 F o ) un ótco:tptï:t óììnìcu, Defraud you not one the other Nowhere else does 1611 use ‘one the other’; ‘one another’ is common. B gives the basis of this reading: ‘Defraude you not the one the other’; G gives the expected reading: ‘Defraude not one another’. 1 Cor. 7:32 things that bel ¯ ogeth 1602: things that belong. MS 98: things that belonge. things that belong, 1612 all, 1616, 1629 :c :c0 things that belong 1612 etc. = 1602, MS 98. 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. 1 Cor. 10:28 The earth is the Lords = 1602. MS 98: —. for the earth is the Lord’s, 1769 (. . . sake. For the earth, 1638) :c0 ,cp Kupicu n ,n The earth is the Lord’s As in Rom. 14:10, 1611 follows B, etc., against G in omitting ,cp. Again this must be taken as deliberate. 343 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Cor. 10:29 but of the others 1602: but of the other. MS 98: —. but of the other, 1762 (but of the other’s, 1873) óììc :nv :c0 t:tpcu but of the other 1762 = 1602. 1 Cor. 12:28 helpes in gouernm¯ etes 1602: helpers, gouernours. MS 98: helpes, governments. helps, governments, 1629 óv:iìn¸ti,, suµtpvnoti, helps in governments 1629 = MS 98. Though this reading is difficult to account for, it is not easily dismissed as a printer’s error. MS 98 shows changes to B, Bois’s notes show the verse came under further notice. See p. 34. 1 Cor. 13:2 haue no charitie 1602: haue not charitie. MS 98: have not charitye. have not charity, 1762 ó,ótnv ot un tyc have no charity S restores 1611, which follows Tyndale’s use of ‘no’. 1762 = 1602, MS 98. 1 Cor. 14:10 none of them are = 1602, MS 98. none of them is, 1638 none of them is Grammatical correction. 1 Cor. 14:15 and wil pray 1602: I will pray. MS 98: —. and I will pray, 1638 tpcotú¸cuci and will pray ‘I’ is unnecessary. 1 Cor. 14:23 into some place 1602: in one place MS 98: into one place into one place, 1629 tti :c co:c into some place B 1568: ‘in one’. ‘Some’ is not impossible and is difficult to explain except as a deliberate late change. 344 1 Cor. 15:6 And that 1602, MS 98: After that. After that, 1616, 1629 ttti:c After that 1616 = 1602, MS 98. This is probably a printer’s error, going back to the beginning of the previous verse, and also reproducing its verse number. 1616 = MS 98. 1 Cor. 15:41 another of the moone 1602: and another glory of the moone. MS 98: —. and another glory of the moon, 1629 sci cììn oc¸c otìnvn, another of the moon 1629 = 1602. 1611 differs from its predecessors in choosing not to repeat all the words of the Greek. 1629 restores the literal reading. 1 Cor. 15:48 such are they that are earthy = 1602 (. . . are . . .). MS 98: —. such are they also that are earthy, 1638 :cic0:ci sci cí ycïsci such are they that are earthy 1611 follows Tyndale, etc. Only R has ‘also’ here. 1 Cor. 16:22 Anathema Maranatha 1602: (Anathema maranatha). MS 98: —. Anathema Maranatha (anathema, Maran-atha, 1629–1743) óvóûtuc. Mcpcv óûc anathema, Maran-atha S: ‘but 1762 and American 1867 have Anathema, Maran-atha, and 1769 even removes the necessary comma between the words; and so D’Oyly and Mant 1817, Oxf. 1835, Camb. 1858, and other moderns.’ Here 1762, followed by S, is right, ‘a curse, Our Lord, come’ (p. 191 n.). 2 Cor. 1:19 Syluanus = 1602. MS 98: —. Silvanus, 1629 (2 Cor., 1613) 2iìcucvc0 Silvanus 1 Pet. 5:12 Syluanus 1602: Siluanus. MS 98: —. 345 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Cor. 3:3 fleshy 1602: fleshly. MS 98: —. fleshy, 1769 (fleshly, 1613, 1629, 1701, 1762, 1817 8 o , MacBible) ocpsivci, fleshy Among 1611’s predecessors, ‘fleshy’ is found only in the Great Bible. All others except R (‘carnal’) have ‘fleshly’. However, Ecclus. 17:16 confirms this use of ‘fleshy’: ‘neither could they make to themselues fleshie hearts for stonie’; compare B: ‘their stony hearts can not become fleshe’; marg.: ‘that is, softe and gentle, for the holy ghoste to write his lawes in’. OED cites KJB for ‘fleshie’ in exactly this sense. 2 Cor. 5:1 made with hand 1602: made with handes. = MS 98. made with hands, 1612 8 o H316, 1629 óytipctcin:cv made with hand 2 Cor. 5:2 we grone earnestly, desiring 1602: sigh we, desiring. MS 98: we grone desiringe. we groan, earnestly desiring, 1769 o:tvóçcutv . . . ttitcûc0v:t, we groan, earnestly desiring 2 Cor. 5:20 that be ye reconciled 1602: that ye be reconciled. MS 98: be reconcyled. be ye reconciled, 1612 all, 1616, 1629 sc:cììó,n:t be ye reconciled MS 98 has R’s reading. All others have ‘that ye be’. 1611 clearly needs emendation, either to direct speech, as in 1612 or MS 98, or as indirect speech, as in Tyndale etc., ‘that ye be’. MS 98 and 1612 point to direct speech as the translators’ choice. 346 2 Cor. 8:7 and vtterance 1602: and in word. MS 98: in fayth and in utterance. and utterance, 1769 (in utterance, 1629–1743, 1762) sci ìc,c and utterance 2 Cor. 8:21 but in the sight 1602: but also in the sight. = MS 98. but also in the sight, 1638 óììc sci tvcticv but in the sight MS 98 confirms that the omission of ‘also’ was the work of the translators, not an omission of the printer. 2 Cor. 9:5 not of couetousnesse 1602: not as an extortion. MS 98: not as a covetousnes. Marg.: or / extorsion. and not as of covetousness, 1638 sci un cottp tìtcvt¸icv not of covetousness See p. 34. 2 Cor. 9:6 reape sparingly . . . reape bountifully = 1602. = MS 98 (reap . . . reap . . .). reap also sparingly . . . reap also bountifully, 1638 gtiocutvc, sci ûtpioti . . . toìc,ici, sci ûtpioti reap sparingly . . . reap bountifully 1611 chooses B’s more natural English against G’s more literal rendering. 2 Cor. 11:26 iourneying = 1602. = MS 98 (journeying). journeyings, 1762 cocitcpici, journeying 1611 follows Tyndale etc. 347 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 2 Cor. 11:32 the citie 1602: the citie of Damascus. MS 98: the cittye of the Damascenes. the city of the Damascenes, 1629 :nv cucosnvcv tcìiv the city of the Damascenes 1629 = MS 98. 1611 appears to have an accidental omission here. 2 Cor. subscription Philippos = 1602. MS 98: Philippi. Philippi, 1629 giìittcv Philippi 1629 = MS 98. Gal. 3:13 on tree = 1602. MS 98: —. on a tree, 1629 tti ¸úìcu on tree Though this seems strange English, a succession of translators approved it (only R has ‘a tree’). Gal. 5:15 take heed ye be not 1602: take heed least ye be. MS 98: —. take heed that ye be not, 1629 µìttt:t un take heed ye be not 1629’s change is unnecessary. Eph. 1:9 he had purposed = 1602, MS 98. he hath purposed, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) tpctût:c he had purposed 1611 follows the Great Bible (approved by G and B) in rendering the Greek aorist with an English pluperfect. Eph. 4:24 that new man = 1602, MS 98. the new man, 1616, 1629 :cv scivcv cvûpctcv that new man MS 98 appears to confirm that the translators chose to follow Tyndale and B against G (which has 1616’s reading). Eph. 6:24 sinceritie. 1602: sinceritie. Amen. = MS 98 (sincerity [no period]). sincerity. Amen, 1616, 1629 ógûcpoic. óucv sincerity. [Delete ‘Amen’.] ‘Amen’ was present in Bishops’, so the omission appears to be deliberate, presumably acknowledging that óunv is not found in all texts. 348 Phil. 4:2 Syntiche 1602: Syntiches. MS 98: —. Syntyche, 1629 2uv:úynv Syntyche Phil. 4:6 request 1602: petition. = MS 98. requests, 1629 :c ci:nuc:c request The translations vary between singular and the plural of the Greek. 1611 has changed B’s ‘petition’, following G’s ‘requests’ except in number. MS 98 confirms this is the translators’ work, not a printer’s error. 2 Thess. 2:14 the Lord Iesus Christ = 1602 (. . . Jesus . . .). MS 98: —. our Lord Jesus Christ, 1629 (1817 8 o = 1611) :c0 Kupicu nucv lnoc0 Xpio:c0 the Lord Jesus Christ 1611 has followed B against the other versions, as it also does at Rom. 15:30 (which has been left unchanged by editors). Since this is not a unique occurrence, it is unsafe to treat it as carelessness. 2 Thess. 2:15 or our Epistle 1602: or by our Epistle. MS 98: or by our epistle. or our epistle (or by our epistle, 1613, 1873) tì:t oi ttio:cìn, nucv or our epistle Since the correction is not essential and has only been followed by S, 1611 is retained. 1 Tim. 1:4 edifying 1602: godly edifying. MS 98: godly edifyinge. godly edifying, 1638 n ciscocuicv Otc0 edifying [Omit ‘godly’.] 1638 = 1602, MS 98. R also omits ‘godly’. MS 98 shows the translators initially intended to follow their predecessors and the Greek by keeping ‘godly’, but the omission may not be accidental. 349 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes 1 Tim. 4:16 and vnto the doctrine 1602: and vnto doctrine. MS 98: and unto doctryne. . . . the doctrine, 1769 (thy doctrine, 1629) : n oiocoscìic the doctrine 1 Tim. subscription Pacaciana = 1602. MS 98: Pacatiana. Pacatiana, 1629 tcsc:icvn, Pacatiana 1629 = MS 98. 2 Tim. 1:7 of loue 1602: and of loue MS 98: —. and of love, 1638 sci ó,ótn, of love [Omit ‘and’.] 1611 follows R against the other versions. The departure from literal translation appears to be for English fluency. 2 Tim. 1:12 and I am perswaded = 1602, MS 98. and am persuaded, 1762 sci ttttiouci and I am persuaded 1611 often omits the pronoun in this situation, but this is a needless change. 2 Tim. 2:19 the seale 1602: this seale. MS 98: this seale. this seal, 1617, 1629 :nv ogpc,ïoc :cú:nv the seal 1616, 1629 = 1602, MS 98 and all previous versions. 1611 may be, but is not certainly, a printer’s error. 2 Tim. 4:8 vnto them also = 1602, MS 98. unto all them also, 1629 óììc sci tcoi :cï, unto them also 1611 follows Bishops’ against Geneva’s more literal rendering. 2 Tim. 4:13 bring with thee = 1602. MS 98: —. bring with thee, and the books, 1616, 1629 tpycutvc, gtpt, sci :c µiµìic bring with thee, and the books 1611 appears to be a printer’s omission. 350 Heb. 3:10 their hearts 1602: heart. = MS 98. their heart, 1638 (their hearts, 1817 8 o ) : n scpoic their hearts Both G and B have the singular; ‘hearts’, which reverts to Tyndale, may be a deliberate correction for sense by 1611. Heb. 8:8 and the house of Iudah 1602: and vpon the house of Juda. MS 98: —. and with the house of Judah, 1638 sci tti :cv cïscv lcúoc and the house of Juda Cf. Rom. 4:12. 1611 sometimes leaves out repeated words. Heb. 10:23 faith 1602: hope. MS 98: —. faith (hope, 1873) tìtioc, faith ‘Hope’ in Tyndale etc. This could be a printer’s error because of ‘faithfull’ later in the verse, but the 1611 reading has been accepted by most editors. Heb. 11:4 Kain 1602, MS 98: Cain. Cain, 1638 Kóïv Cain So 1611 at 1 John 3:12. 1638 = 1602, MS 98. Jude 11 Kain 1602, MS 98: Cain. Cain, 1630 Kóïv Cain 1630 = 1602, MS 98. Heb. 11:23 and they not afraid 1602: neither feared they. MS 98: —. and they were not afraid, 1638 sci cos tgcµnûnocv and they were not afraid 1638’s change is grammatically necessary; the omission of ‘were’ appears to be a printer’s error. Heb. 11:32 Gideon 1602, MS 98: Gedeon. Gedeon, 1629 Itotcv Gideon 1629 = MS 98. 1611 here uses standard OT spellings. Iephthah = 1602, MS 98 (Jephthah). Jephthae, 1629 ltgûót Jephthah 351 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Heb. 12:1 vnto the race that is set before vs 1602: vnto the battell that is set before vs. MS 98: —. the race that is set before us, 1629 :cv tpcstiutvcv nuïv ó,cvc the race that is set before us 1611 appears to be an error caused by failing to delete B’s ‘unto’ when changing the phrase ‘unto the battle’. James 5:2 Your riches are corrupted, and your garments motheaten 1602: Your riches be corrupt, your garments are motheaten. MS 98: Your riches are corrupt, and your garments are motheaten. Your riches are corrupted, and your garments are motheaten, 1638 c tìc0:c, oucv otonttv, sci :c íuó:ic oucv on:cµpc:c ,t,cvtv Your riches are corrupted, and your garments moth-eaten ‘Are’ controls both parts of the sentence, as does ,t,cvtv. 1638 makes the same kind of correction as at Rom. 4:12 etc., but here 1611 is arguably more correct. 1638 = MS 98. James 5:4 which haue reaped downe = 1602, MS 98. who have reaped down, 1762 (1817 8 o = 1611) which have reaped down ‘Which’ is often so used; see later in the verse. 1 Pet. 2:1 euill speakings 1602: backbiting. MS 98: all evill speakings. all evil speakings, 1629 tóoc, sc:cìcìió, evil speakings [Omit ‘all’.] 1629 = MS 98. 1611 follows Geneva. 1 Pet. 2:5 sacrifice = 1602, MS 98. sacrifices, 1629 ûuoic, sacrifice 1611 follows B and Tyndale. 352 1 Pet. 2:6 Wherefore = 1602. MS 98: Wherefore he also. Wherefore also, 1638 oic sci Wherefore [Omit ‘also’.] 1611 follows its predecessors. 1 Pet. 5:10 called vs into = 1602, MS 98. called us unto, 1638 (1817 8 o = 1611) c scìtoc, ouc, ti, called us into MS 98 confirms that 1611 is a deliberate change from its predecessors’ ‘unto’. 2 Pet. 1:9 see farre off = 1602. MS 98: —. see afar off, 1701 H868 see far off 1 John 2:16 the lust of the eyes = 1602. MS 98: —. and the lust of the eyes, 1638 sci n ttiûuuic :cv cgûcìucv the lust of the eyes [Omit ‘and’.] Another case where 1611 (following Tyndale and G) may have omitted the conjunction for reasons of English style. 1 John 2:29 which doeth = 1602 (. . . doth). = MS 98: (w c doth). that doeth, 1629 (doth, 1616, 1629) which doeth 1 John 3:17 hath need = 1602. MS 98: —. have need, 1629 hath need 1 John 5:12 hath not the Sonne 1602: hath not the Sonne of God. MS 98: —. hath not the Son of God, 1629 c un tycv :cv uícv :c0 Otc0 hath not the Son [Omit ‘of God’.] S notes that ‘of God’ continued to be omitted in a number of later editions (p. 193 n.). The omission may be deliberate though it is not literal and goes against the other versions; MS 98 shows that the translators’ first thought was to keep the received reading. ‘Of God’ is understood. 353 References 1611 and Sources Variation Original NCPB Notes Jude 25 now and euer = 1602. MS 98: both now and ever. both now and ever, 1638 sci v0v sci ti, tóv:c, :cu, cicvc, now and ever [Omit ‘both’.] 1638 = MS 98 and G. 1611 follows B. Rev. 1:4 Churches in Asia = 1602. churches which are in Asia, 1638 tssìnoici, :cï, tv : n Aoic churches in Asia 1611, following 1602, is probably deliberate. Rev. 1:11 and Philadelphia = 1602. and unto Philadelphia, 1638 sci ti, 1iìcotìgticv and Philadelphia The omission looks like a mistake but is satisfactory as English. Rev. 2:6, 15 Nicolaitans = 1602. Nicolaitans (Nicolaitanes, 1638, 1701, 1762) Niscìcï:cv Nicolaitans Rev. 5:13 honour, glory = 1602. and honour, and glory, 1638 sci n :iun sci n oc¸c Blessing, honour, glory Omission of the conjunctions appears deliberate. Rev. 7:5 Ruben = 1602. Reuben, 1616, 1629 Pcuµnv Reuben Rev. 7:7 Isachar = 1602. Issachar, 1629 (not 1638; 1817 8 o = 1611) locyóp Isachar Only NT example of this name. Though it would be nice to conform to the OT, the result would be inconsistent with the general inconsistency of the names. Rev. 9:17; 21:20 Iacinct = 1602. jacinth, 1762 ocsivûivcu, oósivûc, jacinth Rev. 13:6 them that dwelt in heauen 1602: them that dwell in heauen. them that dwell in heaven, 1629 :cu, tv : c copcv c osnvc0v:c, them that dwell in heaven 1611 appears to be a printer’s error. It is unsupported by other versions. 354 Rev. 17:4 precious stone = 1602. precious stones, 1630 (not 1638) ìiûc :iuic precious stone Though English usage prefers the plural, 1611 follows all its predecessors except Geneva. Rev. 18:12 Thine = 1602 (Thyne). thyine, 1629 ûúïvcv thyine Rev. 21:19 Saphir = 1602. sapphire, 1638 oótgtipc, sapphire Rev. 21:20 Sardonix = 1602. sardonyx, 1629, 1634 ocpocvu¸ sardonyx Chrysolite = 1602. chrysolite (chrysolyte, 1762) ypuocìiûc, chrysolite Topas = 1602. topaz, 1629 :ctóçicv topaz Rev. 22:2 and of either side of the riuer = 1602. and on either side of the river, 1762 sci :c0 tc:cuc0 tv:t0ûtv sci tv:t0ûtv and of either side of the river The translation here follows G and B, is literal and nonsense; 1762’s emendation is less literal and does not turn the rendering into sense. Colophon FINIS = 1602. THE END, 1762 THE END Format optional 355 Appendix 9 Spelling changes to the current text The list is in two parts, single words and compound words. The latter are grouped by the keyword of the compound. Footnotes comment on some of the spellings. A page reference indicates earlier discussion. No entry for current text and two entries for new spelling indicates use of two forms of one word (see p. 144). A or an, my or mine, thy or thine, no or none, before h: use a (etc.) except before ‘heir’, ‘honest’, ‘honour’, ‘hour’ (p. 142). My or mine, thy or thine: retain ‘mine’ and ‘thine’ only as stand-alone possessives (e.g. Gen. 31:43: ‘all that thou seest is mine’); otherwise change to ‘my’ and ‘thy’. Current text New spelling Current text New spelling a building a-building a coming a-coming a dying a-dying a fishing a-fishing a preparing a-preparing a work a-work abide bide abridgment abridgement afterward afterwards alway always among amongst (p. 144) an hungred a-hungered arrogancy arrogance assay essay asswage assuage astonied 1 astonished attent 2 attentive avouched avowed baken baked bare bore bason basin begat begot bended bent beside besides (p. 138) born borne brake broke brasen brazen broided braided builded built burned (p. 142) burnt cab kab 3 caldron(s) cauldron(s) calkers caulkers chapt chapped chesnut chestnut chode chided cieling ceiling cieled ceiled clave cleft (split) clave cleaved (adhered) 1 Both have the same origin and are used interchangeably in 1611. 2 Used interchangeably in 1611. 3 2 Kgs 6:25. 1611 reading, found as manuscript correction to ‘cab’ in Bod 1602; transliterates :; . Spelling changes to the current text 357 Current text New spelling Current text New spelling clift 4 cleft(s) cloke cloak cloths clothes 5 couldest couldst counsel council cuckow cuckoo diddest didst divers diverse (p. 139) 6 digged dug drave drove dwelled dwelt emerods hæmorrhoids endued endowed 7 enflame inflame engraven engraved enquire inquire ensample example excellency excellence expences expenses farther further (p. 139) fats vats fatten fat (p. 140) fauchion falchion flee fly 8 folden folded forbare forbore forgat forgot forgot forgotten forsomuch forasmuch frantick frantic fret fretted gallies galleys gat got gier eagle gier-eagle 9 girded girt 10 graff graft gray . . . grey . . . handywork handiwork havock havoc heat heated heretick heretic hewed (pa. pple) hewn hindermost hindmost hoised hoisted . . . holden . . . held holpen helped horseleach horse-leech hosen hose hough hock inclos . . . enclos . . . incontinency incontinence inhabitants inhabiters (p. 140) innocency innocence intituling entitling intreat entreat jubile jubilee judgment judgement justle jostle lade load 4 Hebrew generally has a sense of split. 5 Exod. 39:1 is changed to ‘cloths’ in modern editions. However it is not clear from the context whether ‘garments’ (as in RV) or ‘altar cloths’ is meant, so ‘clothes’ is restored. The sense is probably ‘garments’ at Amos 2:8. However, at Ezek. 27:20 the sense is probably cloths to put on a chariot rather than clothes to wear when riding in a chariot. 6 ‘Divers’ for various, sundry, several, ‘diverse’ for different in character or quality. 7 Gen. 30:20 only (Exod. 22:16 reads ‘endow’ in 1611). Other uses of ‘endue’ are in OED sense 9, ‘to invest with a power or quality, a spiritual gift, etc.’ 8 Except for Ps. 11:1, Hos. 9:11 and 2 Esdras 15:41, where ‘fly’ and ‘flying’ are appropriate, 1611’s readings are restored. 9 OED’s ‘geir-eagle’ is not supported by its citations, so 1611’s spelling is retained with hyphenation. 10 Restoration of 1611 at 1 Sam. 2:4. 358 Appendix 9 Current text New spelling Current text New spelling leaped leapt lentiles lentils lien lain lift lifted loaden laden loth . . . loath . . . lowring louring lunatick lunatic magick magic marishes marshes mastick mastic Messias Messiah mixt mixed morter mortar moveable movable musick music northward northwards occurrent occurrence Oh O 11 ospray osprey other others 12 outmost utmost overflown overflowed Palestine Palestina 13 payed paid physick physic pilled peeled plaister plaster platted plaited plow . . . plough . . . pourtray portray pransing prancing preeminence pre-eminence prised priced 14 publick . . . public . . . rase raze ravin raven 15 recompence recompense 16 repayed repaid rereward rearward ribband ribbon rie rye ringstraked ring-streaked ripe ripen satest sattest sawed sawn serjeants sergeants shaked shook 17 shamefaced . . . (p. 137) shamefast . . . shapen shaped sherd shard shew . . . show . . . shewbread showbread shewed shown shined shone shouldest shouldst shred shredded sith since situate situated slang slung slipt slipped sod (p. 142) seethed sodden seethed 11 Following OED and 1611’s predominant usage, regularised to ‘O’ except in the two detached cases (‘and said, Oh, this people . . .’, ‘saying, Oh, do not . . .’ (Exod. 32:31; Jer. 44:4)). 12 Changed where referent is clearly plural. 13 Joel 3:4. Inconsistency of spelling copied from 1602. 14 Zech. 11:13. ‘Priced’ rather than ‘prized’ because the Hebrew verb here is cognate with the noun given earlier in the verse as ‘price’. 15 For consistency with 1611’s ‘rauening’ and ‘rauenous’. 16 For the noun. The verb is already consistent as ‘recompence’. 17 Ps. 109:25. ‘Shaken’ is retained for 1611’s ‘shaked’ at Ecclus. 29:18. Spelling changes to the current text 359 Current text New spelling Current text New spelling sodering soldering sometime sometimes some time 18 spake . . . spoke . . . spilled spilt spitted spat sprung sprang spue spew spunge sponge stablish establish start started stedfast . . . steadfast . . . Stoicks Stoics straitened (p. 139) straited strake struck strakes streaks strawed strewed stript stripped strived striven subtil . . . subtle . . . sung sang sunk sank suretiship suretyship sware . . . swore . . . sycomore sycamore Syriack Syriac tabering taboring table(s) tablet(s) 19 tare tore thank thanks 20 thankworthy thanksworthy throughly thoroughly toward towards traffick traffic trode trod uncorrupt incorrupt uncorruptible incorruptible uncorruptness incorruptness unmeasurable immeasurable unmoveable immovable unpassable impassable unsatiable insatiable untemperate intemperate unwashen unwashed upholden upheld utmost outmost 21 utter outer uttermost outermost 22 vail veil vehemency vehemence villany villainy ware (v.) wore ware (adj.) aware wary 23 waxen waxed whiles, while whilst withholden withheld wouldest wouldst wringed wrung you-ward you-wards 18 ‘Sometimes’ used for ‘on occasions’, ‘some time’ for ‘at an unspecified time, for an unspecified period’. See Wisdom 16:18 in appendix 8. 19 Prevents Zacharias from asking for a writing desk, Luke 1:63. 20 Obsolete in the singular. The next entry is consequential. 21 Exod. 26:10; Isa. 17:6. 22 Exod. 26:4; 36:11, 17; 1 Kgs 6:24. 23 ‘Aware’ for ‘cognizant, informed, conscious’, ‘wary’ for ‘careful or cautious in avoiding’. 360 Appendix 9 Changes to compound words (alphabetical by main part of word) affected evil- well- alms-deeds anyone anything arm-holes ass-colts asses he- she- battering-rams battle -axe -bow bearer armour- cup- standard- tale- blood-guiltiness bone ankle- cheek- breadth foot- hairbreadth handbreadth breaker covenant- truce- brick-kiln broken -footed -handed -hearted cartwheel chamber bride- guest- marriage- side- wedding- chariot -horses -man -city city chariot- merchant- store- treasure- church-robber cloven-footed cock-crowing crisping-pins crook-backed cross-way crown-tax day-spring doer evil- wicked- doing evil- well- double-tongued down-sitting dry-shod evening-tide every one (p. 146) everything everywhere eye-service fallow deer favoured ill- well- feast days fellow -citizen -disciple -heirs -helper -labourer -prisoner -servant -soldier -worker work- yoke- ferry-boat fire -brand -pans first -begotten -fruit -ripe fish -hook -pool -spear fleshed fat- lean- floor barn- corn- threshing- four -footed -square free -born will (Ezra 7:13) -will frying-pan goats he- she- grandchild grape -gatherer -gleanings grave-clothes handed left- weak- head -tire axe- bald- forehead-bald grey- hearted broken- faint- hard- merry- stiff- stout- tender- wise- willing- highway hill -country -top hoar frost holy day home-born horse -heels -hoofs -leech -litter house banquet- banqueting- draught- dwelling- garden- prison- shearing- storehouse summer- treasure- winter- -top hunger-bitten Spelling changes to the current text 361 in stead (p. 138) in-law daughter- father- mother- son- lign-aloes lily-work lion-like long -suffering -winged looking-glass loving-kindness madman tent-makers man freeman herdsman merchantman ploughmen maid-child men -children -pleasers -stealers master-builder meal-time mean season mean while measuring -line -reed mercy-seat milch camels -kine minded double- feeble- high- light- like- sober- money-changers moth-eaten nose-jewels nowadays olive-yard ox-goad paper-reeds place burying- couching- dwelling- feeding- hiding- lodging- lurking- market- resting- sitting- threshing- ploughshares post door- side- pot fining- flesh- wash- water- pruning-hooks right-aiming scarlet-coloured sea -coast -monsters -shore seaside seed-time self-will setter-forth sheep-shearers shoe-latchet shoulder -blade -piece slime-pits snuff-dishes spear-staff spice-merchants star-gazers stiff-necked stock gazing- laughing- stone chalk- corner- sling- stumbling- -bow -squarer stronghold stumbling-block swaddling -band -clothes sweet-smelling teeth cheek- jaw- tender-eyed today tomorrow town-clerk trough kneading- watering- turtle dove two-edged vat press- wine- vine-dressers watch-tower water watercourses -flood -spouts -springs way -marks wayside well -beloved -drawn -pleasing -spring west north- south- will-worship wine -bibber -cellars -press worm canker- palmer- writing-tablet Bibliography Annotated list of Bibles This list is primarily for identification of editions and copies referred to in the appendices. Most were consulted in the Bible Society Library, Cambridge (BS), and in the Cambridge University Library (CUL). A number in brackets following the Herbert Catalogue number indicates which of the Bible Society’s copies is involved. Some of these Bibles are taken as representative of their time rather than as important editions. These are asterisked. When their date is referred to in, usually, Appendix 8, this should be taken as approximate. 1602 folio. Bishops’ Bible. London: Barker. H271. Bodleian Library Bibl. Eng. 1602 b. 1 (‘Olim 13.14. 13Th. ?Afterwards A.2.1. Th. Seld but never the property of Selden himself’ [inscribed inside cover]); with annotations by the King James translators. Lambeth Palace Library MS 98. ‘An English Translation of The Epistles of Paule the Apostle’. See also Allen, Translating the New Testament Epistles. 1611 folio. London: Barker. H309. First edition KJB (‘He’ Bible). CUL Syn 1 61 1 and Syn 2 61 1 (formerly 1 15 16), and BS H309(1), (2), (4). See also 1833, Exact Reprint, and 1911, Pollard (ed.). 1611 folio. London: Barker. H319. Second edition KJB (‘She’ Bible). Readings are from five copies all different: 1. Francis Fry’s ‘standard copy of the 2nd Issue without Reprints’ (handwritten note); BS H319(1); see above, p. 66, n. 5; 2. CUL Syn 1 61 4; 3. Fry’s number 3 in table 2 of A Description; BS H319(3); 4. Fry’s number 5 in table 2 of A Description; ‘a very valuable Standard copy the one I have used in all my comparisons’ (Fry, handwritten note); BS H319(5); 5. BS H319(6). Second edition readings were checked against 2 first; unconfirmed readings were then checked against all four other copies; I note in Appendix 8 the copies that confirm the readings only where they were not confirmed by 2. 1612 quarto. London: Barker. H313. BS H313(1); CUL Syn 6 61 32, Syn 6 61 33. 1612 octavo. London: Barker. H315. BS H315(1). 1612 octavo. London: Barker. H316. 1612 quarto New Testament. London: Barker. H318. 1613 folio. London: Barker. H322. CUL Syn 1 61 5 (formerly A 3 13), Syn 1 61 3. 1613 quarto. London: Barker. H323. CUL SSS 29 18, Syn 5 61 8. Bibliography 363 1616 folio. London: Barker. H349. 1617 folio. London: Barker. H353. CUL Syn 1 61 6; BS H353. 1629 folio. Cambridge: Thomas and John Buck. H424. CUL Young 41, Rel b 62 1 (Scrivener used this copy, then classified as 1 14 12; the only variant I have noted between these copies is at Job 4: 6; but clearly a significant amount of resetting took place; Young 41, on heavier paper, may perhaps be the later printing). 1629 quarto. London: Norton and Bill. H425. CUL Syn 5 62 4 (lacks Apocrypha); BS H425 (includes Apocrypha). 1629 octavo. London: Norton and Bill. H426. BS H426. 1630 quarto. London: Barker and Bill. H429. BS H429, H429(1) (duplicate copies). 1630 quarto. London: Barker and Bill. H430. BS H430(1). 1630 quarto. London: Barker. H431. CUL Rel c 63 2, Rel c 63 3. 1638 folio. Cambridge: Thomas Buck and Roger Daniel. H520. CUL Cam bb 638 1 (originally A 3 19). 1646 octavo. London: William Bentley. H591. CUL Rel d 64 2. 1660 folio. Cambridge: John Field. H668. BS H668. 1660 octavo. Cambridge: Henry Hills and John Field. H669. BS H669(1). 1675 quarto. Oxford. H719 (or H720). 1701 folio. Oxford: University-printers. H867. BS H867. 1701 folio. London: Bill and Executrix of Thomas Newcomb. H868. BS H868. *1744 quarto. Oxford: Thomas and Robert Baskett. H1068. BS H1068. *1752 quarto. Oxford: Thomas Baskett. CUL 7100 b 50. 1762 folio. Cambridge: Bentham. H1142. Ed. F. S. Parris. BS H1142. 1769 folio. Oxford: Wright and Gill. H1194. Ed. Benjamin Blayney. CUL Adv bb 77 2. 1 *1817 octavo. Cambridge: J. Smith. H1663. Cambridge Stereotype Edition. 1817 folio. Oxford for SPCK. H1658. Ed. George D’Oyly and Richard Mant. CUL 1 16 24–6. 1 This copy was purchased by Gilbert Buchanan in June 1822 for £9 9s 0d. He wrote this note at the beginning: This edition of the Bible is very correct [‘qry’ written small above this] and very scarce the whole impression (very few copies excepted) having been destroyed by fire The corrections made by me are from a collation with the Standard; viz. the fo. edition by the King’s Printer 1611 – commonly called King James’s Bible (this I also possess) The variations are chiefly in the pointing, and Italic words, or to the Text; but the * Contents of the chapters are very much altered: And besides the obsolete spelling, many of the proper names are differently spelt . . . * In the Qt o . Ed. 1806 by the K. Printers, these ‘Contents’ are according to the Standard. Buchananannotatedthe entire volume, Apocrypha included, toshowall the variations from 1611. His 1611 was a second edition. Though the work is minutely painstaking (having perhaps the character of a penitential exercise), it is, naturally, imperfect. Buchanan appears to have been more concerned with variations of spelling, italics, punctuation, margins and summaries than with changes of language. 364 Bibliography 1833 folio. The Holy Bible, an Exact Reprint page for page of the Authorized Version Published in the year MDCXI. Oxford. *1837 folio. Cambridge: John William Parker. H1818. *1857 sixteenmo. Cambridge for SPCK, C. J. Clay. H1906. BS H1906. 2 *1857 twentyfourmo. Oxford for the British and Foreign Bible Society. Not listed in Herbert. BS H1908a (also 1857 Oxford Pearl octavo, H1908a; no differences noted between these). *1857 octavo. London: Eyre and Spottiswoode for the British and Foreign Bible Society. Not listed in Herbert. BS H1908a. 1873. The Cambridge Paragraph Bible of the Authorized English Version, with the text revised by a collation of its early and other principal editions, the use of the italic type made uniform, the marginal references remodelled . . . H1995. Ed. F. H. A. Scrivener. Cambridge. 1911. The 1911 Tercentenary Bible . . . The Text Carefully corrected and amended 1911. H2169. Oxford. BS H2169 (English and American editions). 3 *1931. London: Cambridge UniversityPress for the BritishandForeignBible Society. BS H2239. 1951. The Reader’s Bible. London: Oxford University Press, Cambridge University Press, Eyre and Spottiswoode. *1960. The Jubilee Bible. London: British and Foreign Bible Society. H2311. Ed. John Stirling, illust. Horace Knowles, commemorating the third Jubilee of the British and Foreign Bible Society in 1954. The Bible Society copy, H2311, is the 1,000,001st copy, dated April 1960. *1963. Oxford for British and Foreign Bible Society. NewRuby Refs. BS201 [F63]/1. Called ‘singers Bible’ after Prov. 1: 10, where it reads ‘singers’ for ‘sinners’. Colophon: ‘14 61’, so may date from 1961. *1973. Philadelphia, Pa.: National Publishing Company. *1996. Oxford: Oxford University Press. New Pica Royal text. As reprinted in The Bible: Authorized King James Version, intro. and notes Robert Carroll and Stephen Prickett. *N.d. Cambridge University Press Concord Octavo, Bold-figure refs. I have used a 1992 copy. *N.d. The Apocrypha. Cambridge University Press Pitt Brevier Edition. *N.d. (?1978). The Apocrypha. New York: American Bible Society. 2 These 1857 editions were selected because several from the same year but different pub- lishers were available; Scrivener took a Cambridge octavo (with marginal refs), 1858, as his standard, and the Cambridge quarto, 1863, as his standard for the Apocalypse. Collections of nineteenth- and twentieth-century KJBs are thin because few of the printings were con- sidered special; the Bible Society did not collect ordinary KJBs, publishers did not send new printings or formats to the copyright libraries. See above, p. 116. 3 This text stands outside the main line of the text in spite of its claim to be ‘a scholarly and carefully Corrected Text of the historic English Bible, the time-honoured Authorized Version’ (Preface); it sometimes changes the text substantially, e.g. 1 Tim. 2: 8–10: ‘I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath or doubting. In like manner also, that the women clothe themselves in seemly apparel, with modesty and discretion; not with pleatings, and gold, or pearls, or costly array; But, as becometh women professing godliness, with good works.’ Bibliography 365 Electronic texts The Bible in English. Cambridge: Chadwyck-Healey, 1996. Logos Bible Software 2.0c. 4th edition. Oak Harbor, Wa: Logos Research Systems, 1996. macBible 2.0. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Electronic Publishing, 1988. Works Cited Allen, Ward S. Translating for King James. Nashville, Tenn.: Vanderbilt University Press, 1969. Translating the NewTestament Epistles 1604–1611: AManuscript fromKing James’s Westminster Company. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms International for Vanderbilt University Press, 1977. Allen, Ward S., and Edward C. Jacobs. The Coming of the King James Gospels: A Collation of the Translators’ Work-in-Progress. Fayetteville: The University of Arkansas Press, 1995. Arber, Edward. A Transcript of the Registers of the Company of Stationers of London; 1554–1640 A.D. 5 vols. London, 1875–94; reprinted, Gloucester, Mass.: Peter Smith, 1967. Babbage, Stuart Barton. Puritanism and Richard Bancroft. London: SPCK, 1962. Barlow, William. The Svmme and Svbstance of the Conference . . . at Hampton Court. Ianuary 14. 1603 (i.e. 1604). London, 1604. Facsimile, intro. WilliamT. Costello and Charles Keenan. Gainesville: Scholars’ Facsimiles and Reprints, 1965. Black, M. H. Cambridge University Press 1584–1984. Cambridge: Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 1984. Carter, Harry. A History of Oxford University Press: Volume 1: To the Year 1780. Oxford: Clarendon, 1975. Cathcart, K. J., andR. P. Gordon, trans. andannot., The Targumof the Minor Prophets (The Aramaic Bible, vol. 14). Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1989. Curtis, Thomas. The Existing Monopoly, an Inadequate Protection, of the Authorised Version of Scripture. London, 1833. Daiches, David. The King James Version of the English Bible. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1941. Daniell, David. William Tyndale: A Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994. Dictionary of National Biography. Ed. Leslie StephenandSydney Lee. London: Smith, Elder, 1908–9. Fry, Francis. A Description of the Great Bible . . . also of Editions in Large Folio, of the Authorized Version . . . London, 1865. Fuller, Thomas. The History of the University of Cambridge. 1655; ed. Marmaduke Prickett and Thomas Wright, Cambridge, 1840. Goodspeed, Edgar J. Problems of New Testament Translation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1945. Greetham, D. C. Textual Scholarship: AnIntroduction. NewYork: GarlandPublishing, 1994. Greg, W. W. A Companion to Arber. Oxford: Clarendon, 1967. 366 Bibliography Hallam, Henry. Introduction to the Literature of Europe in the Fifteenth, Sixteenth, and Seventeenth Centuries. 4 vols. 1837–9; sixth edn, London, 1860. Herbert, A. S. Historical Catalogue of Printed Editions of the English Bible 1525–1961. London: The British and Foreign Bible Society; NewYork: The American Bible Society, 1968. Jacobs, EdwardCraney. ‘KingJames’s Translators: The Bishops’ Bible NewTestament Revised’. The Library, 6th series, 14: 2 (June, 1992). 100–26. ‘Two Stages of Old Testament Translation for the King James Bible’. The Library, 6th series, 2: 1 (March, 1980). 16–39. Kilburne, William. Dangerous Errors in Several Late Printed Bibles. Finsbury, 1659 (1660). Lowth, Robert, trans. George Gregory. Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews. 2 vols. London, 1787. McKitterick, David. A History of Cambridge University Press. 3 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992–. McMullin, B. J. ‘The 1629 Cambridge Bible’. Transactions of the Cambridge Biblio- graphical Society, 8: 4 (1984). 381–97. Mombert, J. I. The English Versions of the Bible. 2nd edn. London, 1890. Morgan, Paul. ‘A King’s Printer at Work: Two Documents of Robert Barker’. The Bodleian Library Record, 13: 5 (October, 1990). 370–4. Nicolson, Adam. Power and Glory: Jacobean England and the Making of the King James Bible (American edition: God’s Secretaries: The Making of the King James Bible). London: HarperCollins, 2003. Norton, David. A History of the Bible as Literature. 2 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. ‘John Bois’s Notes on the Revision of the King James Bible NewTestament: ANew Manuscript’. The Library, 6th series, 18: 4 (December, 1996). 328–46. ‘Imagining Translation Committees at Work: The King James and the Revised Versions’. In The Bible as Book: the Reformation, ed. Orlaith O’Sullivan, pp. 157–68. London: The British Library; Newcastle, Del.: Oak Knoll Press, 2000. Parkes, M. B. Pause and Effect. Aldershot: Scolar, 1992. Paine, Gustavus S. The Men Behind the King James Version (originally The Learned Men, 1959). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker, 1977. Plomer, Henry. R. ‘The King’s Printing House under the Stuarts’. The Library, new series, 2 (1901). 353–75. Pollard, A. W., ed., The Holy Bible. A Facsimile in a Reduced Size of the Authorized Version Published in the Year 1611. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1611. Purver, Anthony. A New and Literal Translation of all the Books of the Old and New Testament. 2 vols. London, 1764. Report on the History and Recent Collation of the English Version of the Bible: Presented by the Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers of the American Bible Society, and adopted, May 1, 1851. New York, 1857. Schaff, Philip. The Revision of the English Version of the Holy Scripture. New York, 1873. Scrivener, F. H. A. The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives. Cambridge, 1884. Bibliography 367 Selden, John. Ed. Frederick Pollock. The Table Talk of JohnSelden. London: Quaritch, 1927. Simpson, Percy. Proof-reading in the Sixteenth Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries. London: Oxford University Press, 1935. Smith, Walter E. A Study of the Great “She” Bible (1613 or 1611). London, 1890. Sperber, Alexander, ed., The Bible inAramaic: Volume III: The Latter Prophets Accord- ing to Targum Jonathan. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Ussher, Ambrose. Epistle dedicatory andfirst chapter of Genesis fromhis unfinished translation. Fourth Report of the Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts. London, 1874. Wells, Stanley, and Gary Taylor. Modernizing Shakespeare’s Spelling. Oxford: Clarendon, 1979. Westcott, Brooke Foss. A General View of the History of the English Bible. 1868. 3rd edn, rev. William Aldis Wright. London: Macmillan, 1905. Wheeler, G. W., ed. andintro. The Letters of Thomas Bodley to Thomas James. Oxford: Clarendon, 1926. Willoughby, Edwin Elliott. The Making of the King James Bible. Los Angeles: Plantin Press for Dawson’s Book Shop, 1956. Wood, Anthony ` a, ed. John Gutch. The History and Antiquities of the University of Oxford. Oxford, 1796. Wright, William Aldis. The Authorised Version of the English Bible 1611 (Cambridge English Classics). 5 vols. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1909. General index Abbott, George, 46, 95 Addison, Joseph, 96 Allen, Ward, 7, 13, 14, 18, 19 American Bible Society, 119–22 Andrewes, Lancelot, 12 Athanasius, 92 AVolatry, 114 Bancroft, Richard, 5, 9, 11, 77 Barker, Christopher, 25, 27, 62 Barker, Matthew, 26, 81 Barker, Robert, 3, 12, 20, 24, 25, 26, 35, 40, 46, 55, 62–4, 66, 73, 76, 78, 81, 83, 95 Barlow, William, 5, 77 Baskerville, John, 103, 104 Baskett, John, 102, 103 Baskett, Robert, 101 Baskett, Thomas, 101 Bentham, Joseph, 103, 104 bibliolatry, 114 Bill, John, 26, 62, 81, 100 Bilson, Thomas, 9, 17, 24, 25, 26, 63 Bishops’ Bible, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 35, 36, 37, 40, 41, 43, 46, 47, 50, 55, 62, 63, 77, 79, 88, 153 1602 edition, 5, 12, 17, 20, 24, 28, 29, 30, 35–6, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 50, 51, 58, 59, 71, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91, 107, 108, 109, 134, 135, 140, 147, 151, 152 differences between 1568 and 1602, 35 black letter type, 50 Black, M. H., 94 Blayney, Benjamin, 30, 105, 106, 120, 133, 134, 135, 136, 138, 143, 144, 145, 153, 154, 155, 195–7 Bod 1602, 20–4, 27, 29, 35, 37–45, 51, 57, 63, 69, 71, 73, 76, 79, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 99, 100, 107, 108, 109, 118, 132, 133, 135, 150, 151 See also Bishops’ Bible Bodley, Thomas, 11, 12 Boel, Cornelis, 46, 64, 66 Bois, John, 4, 7, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 28, 34–5, 89, 115 Broughton, Hugh, 5, 77, 141 Buchanan, Gilbert, 30, 106, 107, 363 Buck, John, 83 Buck, Thomas, 83, 89, 94, 95 Burton, Dr, 118 Cambridge Paragraph Bible. See King James Bible, Cambridge, 1873 Cambridge University Press, 4, 25, 92, 105, 115, 131 Carter, Harry, 105, 106 Charles I, 99 Charlett, Arthur, 101 Chrysostom, John, 19 Coleridge, Samuel Taylor, 155 Collingwood, 118 Constantine the Great, 92 Council of Nicaea, 92 Coverdale, Miles, 3, 5, 8, 55 Critical Review, 114 Cromwell, Oliver, 26, 96 Crownfield, Cornelius, 103, 104 Curtis, Thomas, 116–19, 120, 125, 126, 132 Daniel, Roger, 89, 94, 95 Daniel, William, 13, 14 Daniell, David, 86, 87, 88 De Quincey, Thomas, 114 Denison, William, 55, 101 Douai Old Testament, 153 Downes, Andrew, 12, 18, 19, 151 D’Oyly, George, 118 Eliot, George, 149 Executrix of Newcomb, 100 Eyre and Spottiswoode, 115 Eyre, William, 12–14, 15, 16, 17, 19 Fell, John, 99 Field, John, 26, 27, 96, 97, 98, 99 Fry, Francis, 66 Fuller, Thomas, 89, 96 General index 369 Geneva Bible, 3, 5, 6, 8, 10, 24, 38, 47, 53, 54, 55, 57, 58, 59, 62, 63, 72, 88, 99, 156, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 209, 210, 212, 213, 214, 216, 221, 223, 224, 225, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 236, 237, 242, 244, 246, 272, 277, 278, 279, 280, 281, 284, 285, 291, 292, 293, 298, 303, 311, 321, 322, 324, 325, 328, 332, 334, 335, 336, 339, 342, 343, 348, 349, 353, 355 Geneva New Testament, 49, 63 Goad, Thomas, 89 Goodspeed, Edgar J., 6, 35, 77 Great Bible, 3, 5, 46, 47, 55, 293, 335, 348 Hallam, Henry, 114 Hammond, Henry, 99 Hampton Court Conference, 5–6, 11, 117 Hayes, John, 99, 103 Henry VIII, 82 Herbert, A. S., 81 Hills, Henry, 26, 27, 96, 97, 98 Jacobs, Edward C., 20–1, 23 James I, 5, 6, 11, 13, 99 James, Thomas, 11 Jerome, 24, 92 Jerusalem Bible, 160, 161 Jesson, Alan, 105 Johnson, Samuel, 109, 112, 135, 136, 138, 141 Judith Greek text preferred, 10 Julius Caesar, 54 Junius, Franciscus, 29 Kilburne, William, 26, 89, 90, 92, 95, 96, 97, 99, 105, 116 Kilbye, Richard, 124 King James Bible 1612 folio, 105 1612 octavos, 73–6 1612 quartos, 73–6, 126 1613 folio, 76–8, 80, 119 1614 folio, 66 1616 folio, 78–9, 94, 126 1617 folio, 79–81 1629 edition, 3, 25, 31, 32, 33, 34, 36, 41, 42, 43, 58, 59, 60, 62, 79, 89, 94, 100, 126, 154 1660 folio, 99 1660 octavo, 99 1701 folio, 100 ABS 1856, 120, 135 apostrophes, 109 Cambridge 1629, 82–9, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 135, 154, 163 1638, 86, 89–92, 93, 94, 110, 135, 154, 163 1743, 104, 105 1760, 105 1762, 101, 104, 106, 118, 125, 135, 154 1763, 103 1805, 126 1817, 125 1819, 126 1835, 126 1857, 126 1873, 4, 116, 122, 132, 158 1931, 126 companies, 6–7 current text, 115–27 dates, 100 Doves Press 1905, 123 earliest apostrophes, 83 Eyre and Spottiswoode 1857, 126 final copy, 26–7, 28, 63 first edition, 64 initials, 51–3 possessives, 50 printer’s errors, 67 space, 53–4 typographical errors, 54–7 genealogies and map, 141 general meeting, 8, 11, 13, 15, 17–23, 24, 27, 34 ‘He’ Bible. See first edition, 65 headings, 63 italics, 10, 49, 90, 106, 107, 162–3 margin, 90, 92, 163–4 Modern Reader’s Bible, 159 Nelson 1990 (exact reprint), 119 not officially authorised, 46 Oxford 1675, 100 1679, 100 1701, 100, 105 1752, 135 1769, 105–6, 118, 119, 120, 121, 124, 125, 126, 135, 138, 154 1817, 118 1833 (exact reprint), 76, 119, 120 1857, 126 paragraphing, 49, 157–8 poetry, 158 370 General index King James Bible (cont.) preface, 3 printer’s errors, 50, 74, 76, 79, 80, 81, 86, 88, 95, 96, 97, 120, 287, 288, 289, 290, 291, 292, 305, 313, 321, 324, 336, 354 punctuation, 149–53 punctuation of Ruth, 154 Reader’s Bible, 123, 157 rules for the translation, 4, 7–11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 21, 27, 40, 85, 146, 147, 148 second edition, 64, 65–73, 107 miscorrections of first edition, 70 printer’s errors, 67, 69 ‘She’ Bible. See second edition Singers Bible, 364 speech, 156–7 Speed’s genealogies, 141 spelling, 50 use of Lord, 50 Wicked Bible, 81, 95, 104 with Geneva annotations, 99 King’s Printer, 83. See also Barker Lambeth Palace MS 98, 13, 17, 20, 23, 27, 29, 30, 34, 60, 132, 133, 146, 147 Laud, William, 99 Legate, John, 82 Legge, Cantrell, 82 Lively, Edward, 11, 12 Lloyd, William, 100, 105, 195, 196 Locke, John, 158 Lowth, Robert, 109, 112, 158 Mant, Richard, 118 Masoretic pointing, 149 Matthew Bible, 5, 8, 55 McKitterick, David, 103 Mede, Joseph, 89 Moulton, R. G., 159 Nephushim, 43 New Revised Standard Version, 272, 278 Nicene Creed, 92 Norton, Bonham, 62, 64, 81, 95 Norton, David, 114 Norton, Roger, 27 Norton, Sarah, 62 Parkes, M. B., 151, 152 Parris, F. S., 104, 105, 133, 134, 143, 145, 163, 195 Perin, John, 12 Pollard, A. W., 47, 65 Prayer Book, 104 Printer’s Bible, 104 Psalm books, 82 Purver, Anthony, 133 Rainolds, John. See Reynolds, John recipe ‘for a cough or Decline’, 73 Revised Version, 27, 40 Reynolds, John, 5, 6, 11, 12 Rheims New Testament, 3, 9, 32, 330, 342, 345, 346, 348, 349, 350 Rheims-Douai Bible, 55 Ryves, George, 9 Schaff, Philip, 120 Scrivener, F. H. A., 4, 7, 13, 14, 19, 30, 58, 61, 65, 72, 76, 78, 89, 90, 92, 94, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106, 109, 116, 119, 121, 123, 132, 137, 145, 146, 154, 158, 162, 163, 202, 203, 204, 206, 217, 230, 237, 244, 249, 259, 266, 273, 294, 297, 303, 305, 314, 317, 320, 323, 327, 328, 331, 336, 344, 353, 363, 364 Secker, Thomas, 105, 118, 196 Selden, John, 12, 118 Septuagint, 10, 29, 88, 208, 237, 244, 279, 286, 299, 300, 301, 303, 305 Smith, Miles, 17, 24, 25, 26, 63 Smith, Walter E., 65, 72 Sparke, Michael, 95 Speed, John, 141 stereotyping, 104 Sternhold and Hopkins Psalter, 159 Strong, James, 162 Synod of Dort, 9, 13, 17–18, 57 Targum Jonathan, 38 Tobit Greek text preferred, 10 Tremellius, Emmanuel, 24, 29 Tyndale New Testament, 330, 342, 344, 345, 346, 347, 348, 351, 352, 353 Tyndale, William, 3, 5, 8, 32, 33, 55, 86, 87 Ussher, Ambrose, 47, 367 Ussher, James, 12, 14, 100 verse division, 149 Vinegar Bible, 101 Vulgate, 24, 29, 41, 58, 88, 163, 208, 244, 269, 279, 299, 303, 318 General index 371 Walker, Andrew, 7, 11, 17–19, 21 Ward, Samuel, 9, 89, 90 Wells, Stanley, 135, 137, 141, 143 Westcott, Brooke F., 24 Whitgift, John, 5, 77 Willoughby, Edwin E., 22, 24 Wilson, Lea, 66 Wood, Anthony, 9, 12 Wright, William Aldis, 30, 56 Word index a and an, 121 Abdeel, 286 Abiah, 248 Abida, 85, 203 abide, 110 Abigail, 56, 237 Abitub, 255 Absalom, 322, 326 Accos, 321 Achaz, 327 Achsah, 247 Acipha, 302 Adonijah, 248 Adonikam, 302 Adoni-zedek, 226 Adrammelech, 243 affright, 140 afore, 140 agone, 140 Ahiam, 256 Ahithophel, 260 Ahuzam, 250 Aijalon, 35, 227 alien, 99 Amasai, 263 Amaziah, 251 amend, 110 Ammihud, 218 Amminadab, 246 Ammizabad, 260 Ammonites, 239 among and amongst, 144 Amoz, 243 Apelles, 342 Apharsathchites, 265 Apollonius, 324 Apollos, 33, 146, 343 appertain and pertain, 263 Arba, 232 Asbazareth, 303 Ascalon, 311 Ashtemoh, 230 Ashtoreth, 240 Asideans, 319 Asnappar, 266 Asshur, 291 assuaged, 121 astonished, 121 astrologers, 94 Attai, 257 aught, 121 aware, 110 aware and wary, 139 awl, 121 Azaelus, 305 Azareel, 256 Azaz, 252 Azaziah, 259 Azmaveth, 255 Baalath, 42, 232 Baaseiah, 252 Balnuus, 305 band, 140 Banuas, 302 basin, 121 Bazlith, 269 Bealiah, 256 Bedeiah, 267 Beerothite, 237 begot, 142 Berechiah, 252 beside and besides, 138, 145 Besodeiah, 268 Bethanath, 231 Beth-horon, 226 Beth-lehem, 296 betime, 140 Betomasthem, 312 betray and bewray, 136, 137 betwixt, 140 bide, 140 Bilhah, 251 Bilhan, 246 Binnui, 267 Booz, 327 born and borne, 121, 139 Bosora, 320 Bozrah, 206 braided, 121 brazen, 121 brittle, 110 broidered, 94 burden, 94 burned and burnt, 142 Caiaphas, 336 Cain, 351 Callisthenes, 326 Canaan, 304 caterpillar, 121 ceiling, 121 Chaldees, 42, 75, 85, 100, 201 chapped, 121 Charashim, 251 Charcus, 302 Chinnereth, 147, 228 Chinneroth, 227 Chobai, 312 chrysolite, 355 Cirama, 302 cleaved and cleft, 139 cleft, 121 Cleopas, 334 clifts, 126 cloak, 122 clothes, 122 clothes and cloths, 139 Cnidus, 339 compound words, 145–6 Coelosyria, 301 Cos, 338 cuckoo, 122 curdled, 110 dedicated, 111 Dessau, 327 Dilean, 229 Dishan, 246 divers and diverse, 138 Dothaim, 311 Word index 373 drank, 100 dureth, 140 Ecbatana, 326 Eker, 247 Elealeh, 287 Eleasah, 255 Eleazar, 303 Eleuzai, 256 Eliahba, 237 Eliathah, 260 Elionas, 305 Eliphalet, 42, 257 Elipheleh, 258 Eliseus, 316, 333 Elishama, 287 Elizabeth, 332 Elnaam, 256 Elymais, 320 Elymeans, 311 Emmaus, 334 Emmor, 337 endamage, 140 endowed and endued, 139 entreat, 122 Epher, 245 Ephratah, 276 Esdraelon, 311 Eshtaol, 229 especial and special, 145 Ezekias, 316 Ezekiel, 316 Ezer, 246 Ezion-geber, 220, 262 farther and further, 126, 139 fat, 140 fatten, 111 flee and fly, 139 floats, 99, 126 forasmuch, 99, 100 Gaba, 268 Gabbai, 270 Gad, 287 Galaad, 319 Galilee, 74, 239, 332 Gazera, 320 Gedor, 42, 255 Gennesaret, 329 Gerizim, 224 Gethsemane, 331 Gibbethon, 232 Gibeah, 230, 280 Gideon, 351 gin, 110 girded and girt, 145 glittering, 110 Goliath, 316 Gomorrha, 306 Gortyna, 323 grave, 140 grizzled, 122 Haahashtari, 250 Habacuc, 318 Hallohesh, 268 Hamath, 248 Hammedatha, 271 Hamutal, 244 Hananeel, 100, 298 Hapharaim, 231 haply, 94 Haroeh, 91, 247 Hashubah, 249 havoc, 122 Hazarmaveth, 245 Hazar-shual, 231 heated, 111 Helkath, 232 heretic, 122 Hesed, 238 Hezron, 219 Hiereel, 305 Hilkiah, 243 Hodaviah, 265 Hodijah, 42, 270 Holofernes, 50, 75, 85, 311 Hosah, 260 Hoshama, 249 Hydaspes, 310 Imla, 74, 262 Imnah, 264 impossible, 99, 100 in stead, 138 in sunder, 140 indefinite article, 142 inflaming, 122 inhabitants, 110 inhabiters, 140 intreat, 94 inwards, 141 Isaac, 306 Isachar, 354 Isaiah, 243 Ishmael, 37, 256 Ishod, 254 Ishui, 207 Isui, 73 its, 99, 144 Jaaziel, 258 Jabbok, 219 Jacinth, 354 Jacob, 274 Jahazah, 85, 229 jailor, 99 Japheth, 201 Jechonias, 299 Jedaiah, 251, 269 Jediael, 257 Jeeli, 302 Jehalelel, 263 Jehdeiah, 259 Jehoaddan, 262 Jehoahaz, 262 Jehoash, 242 Jehoiachin, 288 Jehoiakim, 245, 248 Jehoshua, 255 Jehozabad, 261 Jeiel, 259 Jekameam, 259 Jephthah, 351 Jeremoth, 254 Jeremy, 100, 300 Jericho, 329 Jeroham, 257 Jerubbesheth, 236 Jerusalem, 306, 327 Jeshohaiah, 251 Jeshua, 259 Jeshurun, 225 Jezreel, 231 Jezziah, 267 Jimnah, 219 Jiphtah, 229 Joacim, 302 Jokmeam, 239 Joppe, 322 Joribus, 115, 303 Josephus, 305 Joshua, 297, 326 Josibiah, 251 Jozabad, 264, 305 jubilee, 122 Juda, 300 Judith, 100, 310 374 Word index Kadesh, 203 Kelita, 267 Kenizzites, 85, 202 Kerioth, 296 Kirjath-sannah, 229 known, 141 Korahites, 220 Lachish, 229 lade and load, 145 laden, 122 lain, 122 lama sabachthani, 330 leasing, 141 Lebanon, 233 Libnah, 229, 253 lifted, 122 loathe, 122 lose, 99 lowering, 122 lunatic, 122 Lycia, 339 Lydda, 322 Lydia, 320 Maachah, 236, 247 Maadiah, 270 Maarath, 42, 230 Maasai, 255 Maaseiah, 258 magnifical, 141 Malachy, 101, 306 Malchiah, 147, 252 Malchijah, 252 Malchishua, 234 Mani, 305 Mareshah, 247, 261 marshes, 122 Mattathah, 267 Mehetabeel, 268 Melchias, 305 Memeroth, 303 Menan, 333 Menestheus, 325 Meremoth, 267 Merran, 316 Meshezabeel, 270 Meshillemoth, 270 Micha, 269 Michah, 259 Michmas, 42, 269 Midianites, 206 Mikneiah, 258 Milcom, 244 minish, 141 Mishmannah, 257 Mispar, 265 mixed, 122 Mizar, 273 modern third person singular, 144 Morasthite, 285 mortar, 122 Moses, 299 Mosollamon, 303 murder, 94 murderer, 135, 142 music, 122 Nabat, 316 Nabathites, 321 Naharai, 237 Nain, 333 Nathanael, 335 naught and nought, 139 Nebuchadrezzar, 286 neesings, 141 Nehum, 268 Nephthali, 310 Nephthalim, 310 Nephusim, 42, 265 Nethaneel, 246 Nicolaitans, 354 Nineveh, 309 Nogah, 91, 248 O and Oh, 139 oft times and often times, 145 Oniares, 322 others, 100 outer, 110, 122 outermost and uttermost, 139 outmost and utmost, 139 Ozem, 247 Ozias, 303 Pacatiana, 350 paid, 122 Parmenas, 337 Pashur, 255 Pedahzur, 219 Phalec, 333 Pharaoh, 299 Phaselis, 323 Phenice, 338 Pherezite, 311 Phibeseth, 291 Philippi, 348 Philistim, 201 Philistines, 204 Phinees, 318 Phison, 315 Pira, 302 plaster, 122 plat, 141 plucked, 122 Pochereth of Zebaim, 269 Porcius, 339 portray, 122 possessive pronouns, 144 possessives, 144 prancings, 122 prized, 99, 122 Ptolemee, 312 public, 122 Raca, 328 Rachel, 285 Ramah, 286 raven, 122 Reaiah, 251 rearward, 122 recompense, 122, 135 repaid, 122 Resaias, 302 Resheph, 254 Reu, 245 Reuben, 354 ringstreaked, 122 Sabaoth, 341 Sabateus, 305 Sabie, 100, 302 Sabtecha, 201 sackcloth, 122 sailor, 125 Salchah, 252 Salma, 91, 248 sapphire, 355 Sara, 340 sardonyx, 355 Seba, 245 seethed, 142 Selemias, 305 Senaah, 269 Seraiah, 251 Shageh, 256 Shahazimah, 42, 231 Shallum, 248 Shallun, 268 Word index 375 shamefast, 100, 137, 138 Shammua, 235 Sheba, 291 Shechaniah, 250 shekels, 108 Shem, 37, 85, 200 Shemaiah, 250 Shemida, 254 Shephatiah, 248 Sheva, 247 Shimea, 237 Shimeath, 262 Shimon, 251 Shimri, 256 Shion, 231 Shitrai, 260 Shoa, 290 Shua, 255 Sicyon, 323 Side, 323 Sidon, 303 Siloam, 42, 333 Silvanus, 345 Sinai, 306 since, 94, 122 Sirah, 235 sneezed, 110 soap, 122 soldering, 122 some time and sometimes, 145 spew, 122 spoke, 142 sponge, 122 stank, 99 started, 111 steadfastly, 122 Stephen, 336 stoics, 122 straited, 110, 139 streaks, 122 strewed, 122 stripped, 122 Suah, 76, 255 submissively, 33, 139, 141, 142 sycamore, 122 Sychem, 337 Syelus, 299 Syntyche, 349 Syriac, 122 Taanath-shiloh, 230 Tabbaoth, 269 Tarshish, 271 Tarsus, 325 thoroughly, 122 Thyine, 355 Timothy, 146–7, 338 Topaz, 355 Tryphon, 322 Urbane, 342 Uriah, 240 Urijah, 268 Uzzah, 235 Vashti, 270 verb forms, 143 ward and wards (suffixes), 145 while, 122 wondrously, 126 ye and you, 111–13, 143–4 Zabdi the Shiphmite, 260 Zacchaeus, 115, 334 Zachary, 100, 305 Zebah, 232 Zechariah, 257 Zerah, 207 Zerahiah, 266 Zichri, 207 Zidonians, 239 Ziklag, 270 Zion, 222 Zizah, 259 Zohar, 42, 250 Index of biblical references Old Testament Genesis 2:21 138 2:24 77 3:5 77 3:8 145 5:32 84, 200 6:5 83, 200 6:10 84, 200 7:13 84, 200 7:20 77 8:13 44, 90, 110, 200 9:7 113 9:18 84, 85, 201 9:23 84, 85, 201 9:27 84, 201 10:1 84, 201 10:2 84, 201 10:7 115, 201 10:11 201 10:14 74, 84, 201 10:16 201 10:19 84, 201 10:21 84, 201 11:31 85 12:14 77 14:7 202 14:24 77 15:7 85, 201 15:18 202 15:19 84, 85, 202 16:6 51, 69, 70, 202 16:14 91, 202 17:4 77 19:21 90, 203 20:1 91, 203 22:7 74, 84, 203 22:13 77 23:9 145 23:10 107, 203 23:18 90, 107, 203 25:4 84, 85, 115, 203 25:19 77 25:29 143 26:1 84, 204 26:8 84, 204 26:14 84, 204 26:15 84, 204 26:18 84, 204 27:44 77 27:45 77 28:3 77 28:22 55 31:1 74, 84, 204 31:30 44 36:14 83, 206 36:33 206 37:36 74, 84, 206 38:30 207 39:1 83, 89, 207 39:6 77 39:16 90, 207 42:31 77 46:12 115, 207 46:17 73, 207 47:5 77 47:6 36, 58, 107, 108, 207 47:18 83, 111, 207 47:26 77 Exodus 5:11 113 6:21 207 7:21 99 8:1 157 8:9 94 9:28 94 10:3 157 14:10 65 15:25 90, 208 18:21 108 18:25 108 20:13 143 20:14 81, 95 21:26 56, 199 21:32 90, 208 23:13 107, 208 23:23 84, 115, 208 25:10 134 26:8 83, 209 28:36 140 29:26 44, 107, 209 31:10 209 34:25 108, 210 35:11 59, 90, 210 35:19 209 35:29 83, 211 37:19 83, 211 38:11 59, 71, 211 39:1 209 39:41 209 Leviticus 1:6 50, 70 1:8 90, 211 1:9 90, 212 2:4 90, 212 5:10 110, 212 5:13 110 7:23 212 8:16 142 8:17 142 10:14 83, 87, 212 11:3 43, 83, 88, 213 11:10 213 13:29 111, 213 14:54 212 15:33 213 17:14 44, 71, 213 18:3 71, 214 19:34 90, 214 20:11 90, 214 22:10 90, 204 23:20 90, 214 23:22 90, 215 25:5 99, 144 25:6 90, 215 Index of biblical references 377 25:23 78, 84, 215 25:31 107, 215 26:23 90, 215 26:40 59, 78, 79, 84, 216 Numbers 1:2 107, 216 1:18 107, 216 1:20 107, 216 1:47 44 3:13 216 3:35 74 4:22 216 4:40 107, 217 5:19 217 5:20 217 6:14 42, 90 7:31 44 7:43 44, 218 7:48 91, 218 7:53 91, 218 7:54 91, 219 7:55 44 7:59 91, 219 7:61 44, 218 9:18 219 9:20 70 10:22 91, 218 10:23 91, 219 10:24 55 20:5 219 21:24 84, 219 24:6 44, 74, 84, 219 26:6 219 26:21 219 26:44 219 26:58 219 29:1 m. 55 30:8 111, 220 33:35 220 33:36 220 35:18–19 135 36:3 83, 221 Deuteronomy 2:8 220 4:25 107, 221 4:25–6 107–8 4:32 58, 74, 84, 221 4:48 222 4:49 79, 84, 222 5:29 83, 222 5:32–3 112 9:10 101, 223 15:11 83, 88, 223 16:4 107, 223 16:5 78, 84, 223 20:7 42, 83, 108, 224 23:25 109, 205 26:1 41, 42, 83, 224 26:6 94 27:12 224 28:23 90, 224 28:29 224 28:42 74, 84, 225 32:15 73, 84, 91, 225 32:35 135 33:5 74, 84, 225 33:6 70 33:26 84, 225 Joshua 1:11 113 3:10 74, 84, 225 3:11 83, 225 3:15 42, 90, 226 6:18 113 7:14 78, 84, 226 7:26 83, 226 10:1 115, 226 10:3 115, 226 10:10 84, 226 10:11 84, 227 10:12 35, 227 11:2 227 11:11 142 11:13 142 11:17 90, 228 12:2 90, 228 12:3 227 12:6 108, 228 12:11 84, 229 13:18 84, 85, 229 13:23 80, 84, 229 13:27 84, 228 13:29 90, 229 15:28 91, 231 15:33 84, 229 15:38 84, 229 15:42 91, 229 15:43 91, 229 15:49 84, 229 15:50 91, 230 15:57 84, 230 15:59 42, 84, 230 16:3 84, 227 16:5 84 16:6 84, 230 19:2 115, 121, 230 19:3 91, 231 19:5 231 19:18 84, 231 19:19 91, 115, 231 19:22 42, 84, 231 19:35 228 19:38 84, 231 19:42 35, 84, 227 19:44 42, 84, 232 21:11 91, 232 21:14 230 21:23 84, 232 21:24 35 21:31 84, 232 Judges 1:31 84, 232 1:35 35 7:4 71 8:10 232 11:2 101, 233 11:19 233 12:6 92 12:12 35 13:8 94 13:19 126 14:17 90, 233 16:2 162 19:29 223 20:9 162 20:44 108 20:46 108 21:19 84, 233 Ruth 2:14 138 3:15 10, 57, 65, 70, 73, 74, 75, 78, 84, 121, 233 4:4 138 1 Samuel 5:4 m. 106 6:7 83, 233 9:20 140 10:10 83, 233 10:23 90, 234 13:18 84, 227 378 Index of biblical references 1 Samuel (cont.) 14:31 35 18:1 83, 234 18:27 83, 234 20:5 90, 234 25:16 83, 234 28:7 42, 83, 88, 234 30:13 140 31:2 234 2 Samuel 2:9 234 3:26 84, 235 4:4 235 5:14 91, 115, 235 6:3 235 6:6 235 6:7 235 6:8 235 6:12 90, 236 8:11 74 10:6 236 10:8 236 11:1 109, 236 11:16 108 11:21 84, 236 13:8 m. 80 16:8 83, 236 16:12 83, 237 17:25 56, 237 20 summary 83 21:14 94 21:21 115, 237 23:32 84, 237 23:37 84, 115, 237 24:12 93 1 Kings 2:42 238 3:4 44, 74, 84, 238 3:12 44, 83, 238 4:10 84, 238 4:12 239 4:23 80 5:9 99 6:1 110, 200 8:61 36, 59, 83, 86, 239 9:11 84, 90, 239 9:26 84, 220, 262 10:22 271 11:1 84, 239 11:5 36, 84, 239 11:33 84, 240 13:6 90, 240 13:11 44, 78, 84, 240 15:5 84, 240 15:14 144, 240 15:19 83, 88, 240 15:20 147, 228 15:27 111, 240 15:29 44, 241 16:8 83, 200 16:19 111, 241 16:23 110, 201 18:5 99 18:28 74, 84, 241 20:26 109 22:2 83, 241 22:48 84, 220, 262, 271 22:53 241 2 Kings 2:19 93 4:35 110, 241 8:19 44, 83, 241 9:23 83, 242 9:26 141, 242 11:10 90, 242 12:18 111 12:19 84, 242 12:20 84, 242 13:24 83, 243 15:15 90, 243 17:14 72 18:8 83, 89, 243 18:18 84, 243 19:2 84, 243 19:37 91, 243 20:1 84, 243 20:13 42, 90, 243 20:17 44, 83, 243 21:21 83, 88, 244 22:2 83, 244 22:12 205 23:13 91, 244 23:21 90, 244 23:31 84, 244 23:36 44, 83, 244 24:2 75, 84, 202 24:13 83, 245 24:19 84, 245 25 100 1 Chronicles 1:9 84, 245 1:20 245 1:25 91, 245 1:33 91, 245 1:38 84, 246 1:42 84, 91, 246 1:44 91, 206 2:10 84, 246 2:14 91, 246 2:18 83, 247 2:25 84, 247 2:27 91, 247 2:42 91, 247 2:48 91, 247 2:49 84, 91, 115, 247 2:52 91, 247 2:54 91, 248 2:55 248 3:2 78, 84, 248 3:3 84, 248 3:7 91, 248 3:10 248 3:15 84, 248 3:16 84 3:18 249 3:19 42, 83, 249 3:20 84, 249 3:21 249 3:22 84, 250 4:6 84, 91, 250 4:7 42, 91, 250 4:13 84, 251 4:14 84, 251 4:19 270 4:20 84, 251 4:29 91, 251 4:34 84, 251 4:35 84, 91, 251 4:36 251 4:37 91, 251 5:3 84, 219 5:5 251 5:8 84, 252 5:11 84, 115, 252 5:15 286 6:29 126, 235 6:39 252 6:40 91, 252 6:57 91, 253 6:60 108, 253 Index of biblical references 379 6:69 35, 84, 227 7:1 84 7:2 109, 217 7:5 42, 90, 254 7:8 254 7:10 271 7:14 69 7:18 91, 254 7:19 115, 254 7:24 84, 227 7:25 91, 254 7:26 84, 218 7:27 255 7:32 91, 255 7:35 42, 249 7:36 76, 255 7:38 255 7:40 109, 217 8:11 84, 255 8:13 35, 84, 227 8:14 91, 254 8:31 42, 91, 255 8:36 91, 255 8:37 91, 255 9:4 84, 218 9:8 248 9:12 84, 252, 255 9:15 269 9:35 91, 247, 259 9:44 37, 91, 256 11:15 42, 83, 256 11:33 84, 237 11:34 84, 256 11:35 256 11:43 91, 247 11:44 259 11:45 84, 256 11:46 84, 256 12:4 264 12:5 74, 84, 91, 256 12:6 91, 256 12:7 84, 257 12:10 91, 257 12:11 84, 257 12:20 91, 257 13:5 248 14:6 91, 248 14:7 42, 84, 257 15:18 78, 84, 91, 257, 258, 259 15:20 91, 257, 258 15:21 91, 258, 259 15:24 91, 246, 257 16:5 91, 257 23:11 259 23:19 84, 259 23:20 84, 115, 259 23:23 84, 254 24:6 91, 246 24:9 252 24:11 84, 115, 249, 259 24:20 84, 259 25:4 91, 260 25:22 91 25:55 254 26:16 84, 260 26:18 90, 260 26:20 111 26:30 260 27:6 91, 260 27:20 84, 259 27:22 84, 256 27:27 84, 260 27:29 91, 260 27:33 91, 260 27:34 91, 260 29:2 83, 110, 260 29:6 261 31:15 249 2 Chronicles 1:19 146 2:13 205 2:16 99, 126 3:10 83, 261 6:27 41, 42, 90, 261 8:16 261 8:17 84, 220, 262 9:11 m. 92 9:15 80 11:8 91, 247, 261 11:10 35, 84, 227 11:20 78, 84, 257 11:20–22 84, 247 13:2 84, 230 13:6 83, 261 16:6 111, 126 17:18 84, 261 18:7 3, 74, 262 18:8 74, 262 20:12 69 20:14 91, 259 20:36 91, 115, 220, 262 23:1 91, 258 24:26 84, 262 25:1 91, 262 25:23 84, 262 26:11 91, 258 26:18 44, 78, 84, 263 28:11 90, 263 28:18 35, 227 28:22 90, 263 29:12 84, 91, 263 29:13 91, 259 29:23 83, 263 29:34 50, 70 31:6 90, 263 31:14 84, 264 32:5 40–1, 42, 78, 79, 264 32:20 44, 90, 264 33:13 94 33:19 94, 115, 264 34:8 91, 258 34:10 110, 264 34:12 74, 84, 257 34:20 205 35:8 91, 257 35:9 84, 91, 259, 264 36:17 91 Ezra 2:2 84, 251, 265 2:22 60, 90, 265 2:40 84, 265 2:50 42, 84, 265 2:59 109, 217 3:5 71, 76, 84, 265 4:9 74, 84, 265 4:10 115, 266 4:24 44, 78, 84, 266 7:4 91, 266 7:18 108, 266 8:3 249 8:5 249 8:13 91, 259 8:16 91, 266 8:17 77 8:21 266 8:23 94 10:2 250 10:18 91, 258 380 Index of biblical references Ezra (cont.) 10:21 91, 258 10:22 91, 258 10:23 91, 267 10:25 91, 147, 253, 267 10:30 91, 258 10:31 253 10:33 91, 267 10:35 267 10:38 74, 267 10:43 91, 259 Nehemiah 1:11 115, 126, 267 2:12 90, 267 3:4 91, 267, 268 3:5 83, 268 3:6 91, 268 3:11 253 3:12 91, 268 3:14 253 3:15 84, 268 3:21 91, 267 3:29 250 3:31 253 6:10 268 6:18 250 7:7 91, 268 7:30 91, 115, 268 7:31 42, 91, 269 7:38 84, 269 7:39 269 7:46 91, 269 7:54 84, 269 7:59 83, 269 7:61 109, 217 8:4 253 8:10 83, 268, 269 9:17 90, 269 10:3 253 10:5 91, 267 10:11 84, 269 10:18 42, 91, 270 11:6 108 11:8 91, 270 11:12 253 11:13 91, 270 11:24 74, 270 11:27 91, 231 11:28 74, 84, 270 12:3 91, 250, 267 12:3 m. 93, 94 12:5 91, 270 12:21 84, 246 12:36 84, 246, 257 12:41 91, 258 12:42 253 Esther 1:8 42, 83, 270 1:9 84, 270 1:11 84, 270 1:12 84, 270 1:14 84, 115, 271 1:15–17 84, 270 1:19 84, 270 2:1 84, 270 2:4 84, 270 2:17 84, 270 3:1 84, 91, 271 3:4 240 3:10 84, 91, 271 4:4 83, 271 Job 1:17 202 4:6 85, 86, 87, 90, 272, 363 4:19 101, 272 10:10 110 15:31 135 16:22 70 18:9 110 19:16 94 20:25 110 24:21 94 25:6 93 30:6 115, 126 30:7 70 33:22 90, 273 37:10 139 39:27–30 57, 58 39:30 78, 84, 273 40:5 139 41:5 90, 273 41:6 44 Psalms 2:4 83, 273 2:6 91, 222 6:4 109, 273 9:11 222 9:14 222 14:7 222 20:2 222 22:6 93 24:3 273 27:14 m. 80 31:16 109, 273 31:21 m. 77 42:6 84, 273 42:9 84, 90, 151, 274 44 title 83, 274 44:26 109, 273 48:2 222 48:11 222 48:12 222 50:2 222 51:18 222 53:6 84, 222, 274 62:10 83, 274 65:1 222 69:32 60, 79, 84, 274 69:35 222 74:2 222 76:5 108 78:68 222 92:8 49 97:8 222 99:2 74, 108, 275 103:8 m. 56 104:20–22 160 105:28 5 105:30 42, 90, 275 106:30 5 107:19 275 107:43 44, 275 113:9 41, 42, 83, 86, 275 115:3 111, 276 119 49 119:101 90, 276 119:161 25, 74 132:6 84, 276 132:12 109, 276 139:7 83 140:3 109, 276 141:9 107, 276 143:9 78, 84 148:8 115, 276 Proverbs 1:10 364 6:19 276 7:21 90, 277 10–22:16 160 10:23 84, 90, 277 Index of biblical references 381 12:14 135 18:24 80 19:6 94 20:1–3 160, 161 20:14 44, 78, 94 25:24 277 26:3 277 27:26 90, 278 28:17 80, 83, 84 29:24 136 31:14 109, 278 Ecclesiastes 1:5 42, 90, 278 2:16 83, 278 8:17 59, 83, 278 11:7 279 Song of Solomon 2:7 56, 57, 121, 199, 279 4:2 279 4:6 42, 83, 87, 88, 279 5:12 78, 84, 279 6:11 77 8:1 90, 280 Isaiah 1:16 121 1:24 154 2:4 80 5:9 m. 93 5:22 108 5:25 93 6:8 83, 86, 280 7:3 72 8:6 99, 100 9:1 84 10:19 69–70, 75 10:26 74, 84, 280 10:29 280 10:34 107, 280 14:3 154 28:4 280 28:15 154 34:8 135 34:11 83, 280, 281 35:4 135 37:38 91, 243 38:12 m. 93 40:3 113 44:2 225 44:13 108, 281 44:20 109, 281 45:1–2 157 47:6 83, 281 49:13 83, 90, 282 49:20 59, 84, 282 51:16 282 57:8 90, 282 59:18 135 59:20 157 59:21 282 62:10 113 64:1 283 66:6 135 Jeremiah 1–4 161–2 1:13 111, 283 4:6 83, 88, 283 4:31 161 5:15 70 5:24 84 6:4 113 7:20 155 7:21 155 7:28 155 8:14 73 8:22 74 9:3 283 12:7 70, 84 12:15 83, 283 15:11 94 16:2 126, 284 19:11 284 21:1 252 22:3 284 23:30 90, 284 25:18 93 25:30 83, 284 26:18 84, 285 27:2–11 157 28:6 83, 285 29:24–8 157 30:13 56 31:14 83, 285 31:15 285 31:18 83, 285 31:30 69 34:11 126 34:16 84, 93 35:13 74, 84, 286 36:26 286 38:1 253 38:6 253 38:16 90, 286 39:5 286 40:1 84, 110, 286 40:5 90, 287 41:1 91, 287 42:13 ff. 157 42:16 83, 287 48:14 108 48:34 287 48:36 101, 287 49:1 78, 84, 287 50:29 287 51:6 135 51:12 60, 83, 288 51:27 90, 288 51:30 83, 288 51:56 135 52:1 245 52:31 84, 288 Lamentations 2:5 76 2:18 289 3:64 135 4:15 289 Ezekiel 1:2 91, 288 1:17 41, 42, 110, 289 3:11 42, 90, 91, 289 5:1 60, 90, 289 6:8 59, 76, 84, 289 10:5 110 11:24 289 12:16 70 12:19 83, 289 14:18 290 15:4 142 15:5 142 18:1 90, 93, 94, 290 20:5 158 22:10 290 22:17 158 23:7 76 23:23 78, 84, 290 24:4 80 24:5 60, 90, 290 24:7 76, 84, 290 25:2 m. 80 26:14 90, 291 27:15 125 382 Index of biblical references Ezekiel (cont.) 27:22 91, 291 27:23 91, 291 30:17 291 31:9 159, 160 31:14 93 32:22 84, 291 32:25 83, 291 34:28 107, 291 34:31 60, 83, 291 36:2 60, 292 36:15 83, 292 39:11 90, 292 40:4 93 40:6 m. 55 40:42 134, 135 42:17 90, 292 43:20 80 43:27 83, 292 44:5 155 44:22 292 44:23 83, 293 44:30 109, 293 46:23 60, 90, 293 48:2 293 48:8 90, 293 Daniel 1:12 59, 83, 294 2:27 90, 94 2:41 109, 294 3:15 90, 294 3:18 42, 83, 294 3:19 111 5:4 100 5:31 74, 84, 245 6:13 60, 83, 294 7:3 139 7:7 139 7:19 139 7:23 139 7:24 139 11:18 156 12:8 294 12:13 90, 295 Hosea 4:4 83, 295 5:8 156 6:5 38, 70, 73, 84, 126, 295 9:7 135 13:3 90, 93, 95, 295 Joel 1:16 83, 295 2:11 m. 80 3:4 135 3:7 135 3:13 42, 83, 88, 296 3:14 56 3:14m 199 Amos 1–2 152, 153 1:1 41, 42, 78, 296 1:3 154 1:11 296 2:2 84, 115, 296 6:2 248 6:14 248 7:1 155 7:4 155 8:3 42, 90, 296 9:5 44, 83, 296 Jonah 1 summary 137 Micah 1:11 113 5:2 84, 296 7:7 44, 71, 297 Nahum 1:4 83, 297 2:3 108 3:16 44, 115 3:17 83, 88, 297 Habakkuk 3:1 297 3:19 84, 297 Haggai 1:1 84, 297 1:12 84, 297 1:14 84, 297 2:2 84, 297 2:4 84, 297 Zechariah 1:1–6 157 1:1 252 1:7 252 4:2 111, 298 7:7 298 11:2 298 14:10 298 Malachi 1:8 59, 298 2:2 74, 84, 299 3:4 90, 299 4:2 42, 79, 84, 298 Apocrypha 1 Esdras 1:4 113 1:6 84, 299 1:8 91, 299 1:9 84, 299 1:11 299 1:25 84, 299 1:28 100, 300 1:30 156 1:31 300 1:33 300 1:39 74, 84, 245 1:55 300 2:8 49, 107, 301 2:9 60, 83, 301 2:17 301 2:24 301 2:27 301 2:29 139 3:11 84, 126, 301 3:13 49 4:13 49 4:21 110, 144, 301 4:43 83, 301 4:47 74 4:48 301 5:5 84, 300, 302 5:5 m. 80 5:8 302 5:9 m. 80, 81 5:14 84, 302 5:16 m. 81 5:19 84, 302 5:20 84, 302 5:26 81, 302 5:31 84, 302 5:32 84, 302 5:33 84, 302 5:34 84, 100, 302 Index of biblical references 383 5:37 83, 303 5:55 99, 115, 303 5:58 56, 199 5:66 74, 84, 300 5:69 84, 303 6:29 301 7:1 301 8:2 84, 126, 303 8:6 83, 303 8:25 49 8:39 84, 302 8:44 115, 303 8:49 304 8:54 m. 75 8:58 93 8:67 301 8:69 84, 304 9:5 300 9:21 84, 305 9:22 37, 84, 305 9:23 84, 305 9:30 84, 305 9:31 84, 305 9:32 84, 305 9:34 84, 305 9:48 84, 305 2 Esdras 1:10 84, 299 1:13 299 1:31 83, 305 1:40 78, 100, 101, 305 2:8 84, 306 2:10 84, 306 2:18 83, 86, 306 3:16 91, 306 3:17 306 3:18 83, 307 3:27 83, 307 3:35 111, 307 4:47 90, 112, 307 5:33 156 6:1 156 6:11 49 7:68 90, 307 8:43 83, 307 10:14 94 10:32 156 10:47 78, 84, 306 12:21 307 13:12 83, 86, 308 13:14 83, 308 13:41 139 14:15 83 14:43 83, 308 14:47 83, 308 15:22 83, 308 15:41 83 15:50 76, 84, 308 15:53 83 15:55 135 16:26 90 16:28 83, 308 16:30 90, 308 16:42 111, 308 16:52 59, 78, 84, 308 Tobit 1:2 91 1:3 84, 91, 309 1:10 84, 91, 309 1:17 84, 91, 309 1:22 84, 91, 94, 309 2:4 111 2:10 309 3:17 83, 309 4:10 115, 309 4:12 74, 84, 306 5:15 83, 310 7:1 310 7:3 309, 310 8:10 310 11:1 84, 91, 309 11:9 156 11:16 84, 91, 309 11:17 84, 91, 309 13:18 90, 310 14:4 91, 309 14:8 91, 309 14:10 91, 309 14:15 91, 309 Judith title 310 1:1 84, 91, 309 1:6 84, 93, 310 1:8 91, 311 1:16 84, 91, 309 2:4 91, 311 2:20 110, 311 2:21 84, 91, 309 2:23 37 2:28 84, 311 3:5 50, 84, 311 3:9 311 4:6 311 5:3 91, 304 5:9 84, 304 5:10 84, 304 5:14 126, 306 5:16 84, 91, 304, 311 7:3 91, 311 7:7 83, 311 7:18 91, 311 8:1 310 8:5 83, 311 8:6 83, 311 8:29 83, 312 10:16 94 12:11 312 14:10 83, 312 15:4 91, 312 15:5 91, 312 15:13 83, 312 16:24 74, 84, 312 Rest of Esther title 202 11:1 91, 312 Wisdom 1:5 83 3:14 72 5:9–11 152 10:10 313 10:14 313 15:4 313 15:13 313 16:18 313 16:29 314 18:9 314 18:18 314 19:3 94 Ecclesiasticus 4:16 115, 314 7:24 83, 314 11:10 83 11:25 83, 314 12:2 135 13:19 109, 314 14:6 135 17:23 83, 135 17:24 83, 93, 314 19:8 84, 314 20:10 135 22:2 110, 144, 315 384 Index of biblical references Ecclesiasticus (cont.) 23:27 83, 315 24:25 84, 315 25:8 315 25:9 83, 315 26:13 111, 140 26:15 100 26:25 137 27:5 83 29:5 139 30:15 83, 315 32:1 83, 315 32:10 100 33:31 94 35:15 90, 315 35:18 83, 315 41:16 100 41:24 100 44:4 56, 199 44:5 60, 61, 316 44:12 110, 144, 316 45:15 84, 299 47:4 84, 316 47:23 84, 316 48:8 316 48:12 91, 316 49:4 84, 91, 300, 316 49:8 74, 84, 316 51:12 74, 84, 316 51:25 156 Baruch 1:4 109, 115, 316 1:10 113 3:22 304 3:23 91, 316 4:2 83, 317 6:2 317 6:8 84, 93, 317 6:9 110, 144, 317 6:21 110, 144, 317 6:40 84, 202 6:45 107, 317 6:55 83 Song of Three title 90, 317 1 90, 318 17 83, 318 Susannah title 90, 318 22 110, 139 56 84, 304 Bel and the Dragon 16 140 27 83, 318 33 84 34–5 84, 318 37 84, 318 39 84, 318 Prayer of Manasses 318 1 Maccabees 1:18 84, 312 1:53 83 2:26 91, 318 2:42 319 2:54 91, 318 2:70 83, 319 3:16 115, 227 3:24 115, 227 4:5 156 4:8 156 4:9 84, 300 4:15 m. 92 4:18 83, 319 4:29 74, 76, 84, 319 4:36 156 4:48 80 5:9 74, 84, 319 5:13 150, 151, 319 5:25 319 5:26 83, 320 5:65 60, 83, 320 6:1 91, 320 6:5 83, 320 6:48 49 7:13 319 7:24 83, 320 7:39 115, 227 7:45 91, 320 8:4 83, 320 8:8 74, 84, 320 8:17 84, 321 8:26 107, 321 9:11 76 9:35 74, 84, 321 9:36 m. 92 9:37 91, 304 9:50 115, 227 9:57 83, 245 9:68 84 10:25 60, 83, 321 10:29 83, 86, 321 10:30 91 10:45 74, 84, 321, 330 10:47 71, 72, 321 10:52 83 10:58 321 10:69 301 10:89 109, 321 11:6 78, 322 11:34 91, 322 11:56 74, 84, 322 11:62 83, 322 11:70 84, 322 12:8 94 12:19 84, 322 12:47 91 12:49 91 13 summary 56 13:11 84, 322 13:39 322 13:51 323 13:53 101, 323 14:29 100 15:22 83, 323 15:23 78, 84, 91, 323 15:28 156 16:14 60, 61, 109, 324 2 Maccabees 1:10 83, 109, 110 1:29 299 1:36 84, 90, 324 2:4 299 2:8 299 2:10 299 3:5 301 3:8 301 3:12 74, 84, 324 4:4 74, 84, 301, 324 4:13 75, 324 4:21 84, 90, 325 4:23 83, 325 4:30 84, 91, 325 4:34 80 4:40 325 4:40 m. 56, 199 4:50 83, 325 5:20 83, 325 7:6 299 Index of biblical references 385 8:8 301 8:33 91, 325 9:3 326 9:4 83 9:18 84, 93 11:4 83, 326 11:9 83, 326 11:17 326 11:21 90, 326 11:27 156 12:15 84, 326 12:27 126 12:42 83, 326 13:22–26 53, 54 13:23 327 14:6 84, 319 14:16 84, 327 15:3 83, 327 colophon 90, 327 New Testament Matthew 1:5 84, 327 1:9 84, 327 2:1 84, 327 3:3 113 3:12 83, 327 4:13 91, 310 4:15 91, 310 5:22 90, 328 6:3 76, 84, 328 8:25 44, 328 9:34 108, 328 10:38 m. 78 11:7 78, 80 12:23 90, 328 12:40 m. 78 12:41 84, 121, 309 13:4 78, 328 13:6 329 13:21 140 13:31 78 13:45 78 14:9 109, 329 14:19 78 14:34 84, 329 15:9 93 16:16 108, 329 16:19 78, 84, 329 17:20 99, 100 18:30 78 19:26 99, 100 20:29 78, 84, 329 22:6 94 22:24 78 23:24 44–5, 330 24 summary 78 24:50 110 26 summary 78 26:36 78 26:39 115, 126 26:51 206 26:75 107, 330 27:22 83, 330 27:46 83, 330 27:52 108, 330 Mark 1:3 113 1:19 115, 126 2:4 102, 330 4:17 140 5:6 44, 90, 330 6:7 109, 331 6:26 109, 329 6:53 329 7:4 72 10:18 90, 331 10:46 83, 91, 331 11:8 44, 90, 331 12:26 74, 84, 306 14:32 78, 91, 331 14:36 83, 331 15:34 44, 83, 330 15:41 74, 84, 91, 332 16:7 74, 84, 91, 332 Luke 1:3 83, 332 1:5 91, 332 1:7 91, 332 1:13 91, 332 1:24 91, 332 1:36 91, 332 1:37 100 1:40 91, 332 1:41 91, 332 1:57 91, 332 1:74 332 1:77 75 3:4 113 3:21 83, 332 3:31 84, 333 3:35 84, 333 4:27 91, 333 4:44 74, 84, 91, 332 5:1 329 7:11 91, 333 8:5 44, 101, 329 8:8 44, 83, 333 9:29 110 11:16 100 11:32 309 12:46 110 13:4 42, 84, 333 14:12 135 15:17 206 17:34 90, 333 18:9 83 18:27 100 18:32 94 19:2 334 19:5 334 19:8 334 19:9 108, 334 20 heading 101 20:12 108, 334 20:37 84, 306 23:11 90, 93 23:19 78, 102, 334 24:13 74, 84, 334 24:18 84, 334 John 1:45–9 84, 335 5:18 83, 335 7:16 335 8:30 83, 335 8:33 335 10:29 91 11:3 83, 335 11:34 109, 335 12:22 335 14:6 115, 336 14:16 91 15:4 59, 336 15:20 108, 336 16:25 102, 336 21:2 84, 335 21:17 90, 336 Acts 2:22 90, 336 4:6 80, 336 4:17 78, 84 5:34 108, 336 6:3 91, 93, 95 386 Index of biblical references Acts (cont.) 6:5 84, 336, 337 6:8 84, 336 6:12 337 7:4 202 7:6 94 7:10 84, 300 7:11 304 7:13 84, 300 7:16 84, 91, 337 7:19 94 7:28 337 7:30 306 7:35 107, 337 7:38 306 7:59 84, 336 8:2 84 8:8 336 8:32 83, 337 10:9 83, 337 11:9 336 11:19 84 12:10 144 13:19 304 13:31 91 15:23 337 16 summary 147 16:1 338 16:23 99 17:3 157 18:5 108, 338 18:24 34 19:19 338 21:1 91, 338 21:2 84, 338 21:40 152 22:20 84, 336 23:3 36, 338 24:4 83 24:14 108, 338 24:24 83, 339 24:27 91, 339 25:6 110, 339 25:23 339 27:5 84, 339 27:7 91, 339 27:18 90, 339 colophon 340 Romans 1:27 135 3:24 108, 340 4:12 340 4:19 83, 84, 340 6:12 74, 84, 341 7:2 74, 84, 341 7:13 32, 33, 74, 84, 341 9:9 84, 340 9:29 84, 341 10:21 31 11:9 135 11:23 110 11:28 342 11:31 151 12:2 31, 32, 83, 342 14:6 32, 33, 83, 342 14:10 31, 91, 342 16:9 342 16:10 78, 84, 342 16 subscription 343 1 Corinthians 1:12 91, 343 4:6 34 4:9 34, 78, 79, 84, 343 6:9 96 7:5 343 7:32 31, 32, 59, 74, 84, 343 10:28 91, 108, 343 10:29 344 11:2 31 12:28 32, 34, 83, 344 13:2 31, 32, 110, 344 14:10 91, 162, 344 14:15 91, 344 14:18 113 14:23 83, 344 15:6 32, 60, 78, 84, 345 15:41 83, 345 15:48 91, 345 16:12 34 16:22 84, 345 2 Corinthians 1:1 146, 338, 345 1:19 84, 345 3:3 76, 109, 346 5:1 74, 84, 346 5:2 31, 109, 346 5:20 31, 74, 84, 346 6:13 135 8:4 94 8:7 31, 84, 93, 109, 347 8:21 31, 91, 347 9:4 94 9:5 31, 34–5, 91, 347 9:6 91, 347 11:26 107, 108, 347 11:32 31, 32, 60, 83, 348 12:13 113 subscription 84, 348 Galatians 3:13 83, 348 4:25 5 5:15 83, 348 Ephesians 1:9 83, 348 2:13 313 4:24 78, 84, 348 5:2 106 5:8 313 5:26 93 6:24 31, 78, 84, 348 Philippians 1:4 75 4:2 84, 349 4:3 94 4:6 83, 349 Colossians 1:21 83, 313 3:7 313 2 Thessalonians 1:6 135 2:14 84, 349 2:15 76, 349 1 Timothy 1:4 31, 32, 91, 349 2:8–10 364 2:9 94, 100, 137 4:16 84, 93, 109, 350 Index of biblical references 387 6:11 84 subscription 84, 350 2 Timothy 1:7 91, 350 1:12 108, 350 2:19 31, 32, 79, 84, 350 3:9 139 4:8 84, 350 4:13 60, 78, 79, 84, 350 subscription 146, 340 Titus 3:3 313 3:13 34 Hebrews 2:2 135 3:10 91, 351 8:8 91, 300, 351 10:23 351 10:35 135 11:4 91, 351 11:23 60, 91, 351 11:26 135 11:32 31, 84, 351 12:1 84, 352 12:19 94 James 5:2 32, 91, 352 5:4 341, 352 1 Peter 2:1 32, 84, 352 2:5 84, 352 2:6 31, 91, 353 3:20 313 5:10 31, 91, 353 5:12 84, 345 2 Peter 1:9 353 2:6 84, 91, 306 1 John 2:16 91, 353 2:23 162 2:29 84, 353 3:17 84, 353 5:12 84, 353 Jude 11 351 25 32, 91, 354 Revelation 1:4 91, 354 1:11 91, 354 2:6 91, 354 2:15 92, 354 2:20 92, 93, 96 5:13 91, 354 7:5 78, 86, 354 7:6 91, 310 7:7 84, 354 9:17 354 13:6 60, 84, 354 17:2 110 17:4 355 18:12 84, 355 18:17 125 21:19 355 21:20 84, 354, 355 22:2 355 colophon 355 REVELATION REVELATION

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful